https://www.w3.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=CharlesW3C Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T16:19:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.0https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Charles&diff=117007User:Charles2024-03-12T02:14:33Z<p>Charles: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've been involved in W3C since the 90's. I am a former <br />
* co-chair of [http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/ webapps],<br />
* member of the Advisory Board,<br />
* AC rep for my last 3 employers,<br />
* W3C team member working on WAI and Semantic Web (as it was called then),<br />
* and have been in plenty of other groups.<br />
<br />
I have worked at RMIT University, W3C itself, at Opera, Yandex, and Consensys. I am Technical Program Director.<br />
<br />
I'm interested in lots of things - more than I have time to do.</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Incubation&diff=116934Incubation2024-02-02T00:29:30Z<p>Charles: /* Paired Incubation and Working Groups */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the project page for the [[AB/2024_Priorities#Incubation|2024 AB Priority Project: Incubation]], intending to define what Incubation means in a W3C context in general, how it might apply to the W3C [[Process]], and how it plays into the Success Criteria of (some) Community Group Charters, as well as entry requirements for being listed as a deliverable in Working Group Charters.<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
Questions for consideration as we (the) AB explore this priority project:<br />
* How should incubation work?<br />
* How should Work Group charters refer to incubation and future work?<br />
* At what stage of "doneness" should work move from an incubation venue to a working group?<br />
* How should an incubation group be communicating their work to a broader venue to ease acceptance as a WG deliverable?<br />
* What expectation of incubation should there be before work is accepted into a WG, or into its charter?<br />
** For now, see how the Web Apps WG refers to incubation and future work especially in relation to the WICG<br />
* What success criteria should there be for incubations? What defines success in this context?<br />
* What happens to incubations that are successfully defined and adopted in one engine, but not picked up by any other implementers?<br />
* What best practices should we define for referring to incubations?<br />
<br />
See also [https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/41 incubation assessment questions].<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
'''The point of making web standards is to enable and ensure interoperability.''' If we call something a "web standard" that doesn’t work across multiple implementations and thus doesn’t work across the web, it's a disservice to users. W3C has “interoperability across multiple implementations” bound in its DNA, and tries to ensure that the Web we have reflects the same principle. <br />
<br />
However, it is rare that a novel idea will immediately get support from multiple implementers, before even being explored; '''incubation is a way of exploring a new problem space or use case, without committing to a particular solution, or even committing to ultimately solving the problem'''. <br />
<br />
In the past, ideas for work on new areas were generally explored in a W3C Workshop or discussed in an Interest Group, while new approaches to existing work were generally raised in or brought rapidly to the context of a W3C Working Group. <br />
<br />
If new ideas fall under the scope of an existing working group, and there is support inside the group to explore the space, this can work well; however, it has some pitfalls. <br />
<br />
Exploration of novel work - new use cases and scenarios - should not be started with a commitment that a standard will be produced to solve the problem. Sometimes Working Groups become too dedicated to delivering a specification that the market considers unnecessary, so it will not be widely implemented and become a standard.<br />
<br />
Chartering a new Working Group, or adding a new deliverable to an existing WG, can create an expectation that a deliverable will be produced and become a standard. While the problem space is being explored, this isn't certain.<br />
<br />
'''Incubation''' means exploring the problem space and testing out solutions, without implying any commitment to deliver or consensus on a solution.<br />
<br />
This makes it safer for incubations to proceed without consensus, trying out multiple competing ideas. If a rough consensus emerges on an approach, possibly by combining the best of several proposals, it might be ready to move that approach to an existing or new Working Group.<br />
<br />
== The Process of Incubation ==<br />
=== Where Should Incubation Happen? ===<br />
Community Groups at the W3C are designed for incubation - in fact, by design they cannot produce what the W3C considers a Standard (a “Recommendation”, in W3C terminology). No matter what a CG calls something they're working on - e.g. an "official CG work stream" - it does not really have any standing as a standard, and should not be referred to as such. The W3C has a Standards Track that requires a Working Group. (CG incubations may take their products and hand them off to WGs, of course, but the WG has to choose to accept them.)<br />
CGs can, of course, choose what they want to work on - and communities built around particular topics will likely institute their own rules to ensure they are spending their community’s time wisely.<br />
The Web Platform Incubation Community Group (WICG) was created in 2015 as a home for incubations that did not have their own community; its bar for adoption is simply that more than one party must express interest in a proposal. WICG doesn't require any party to be an engine vendor.<br />
Incubations may move between incubation venues - for example, incubations may move from the WICG to another CG that has a more targeted community (like the Anti-Fraud Community Group, or the Private Advertising Technology CG) in order to get attention from a more focused community. Of course, if an incubation were developed enough and had consensus that it was the “right solution path”, it's time to charter and create a WG to take it to Recommendation.<br />
Likewise, as long as there are still multiple parties interested in continuing work on an incubation, it may move from one of those venues to the WICG, if the community decides they no longer want to focus on the incubation. A more focused community saying something like "this idea needs more work before we will spend our time on it" is a good reason to move such work into the WICG.<br />
<br />
=== Where Do We Go From Incubation ===<br />
Incubation should be an on-ramp to "graduating" to working groups with consensus, IPR, and consistent horizontal review. The goal of incubation is to improve the pace of iteration before the formal standards processes and requirements kick in. Formal standardization through working groups requires charters that pre-determine the deliverables of the group, but that's far too much commitment when brainstorming new ideas and trying things out.<br />
Incubation doesn't follow any particular timeline. Sometimes the whole community will decide that a particular solution is good enough for their problem, there is support from multiple engine implementers, and the incubation can migrate to a working group to finalize a specification before any browser ships the feature. Other times, a subset of the community might think the incubation is ready before more than one engine has the resources to fully investigate and approve the idea. This can prevent some working groups from adopting the incubation even while the earlier browsers proceed with shipping the feature. The earlier browsers' experience with having shipped the feature can then be used to help build consensus that it's a good thing for a working group to adopt.<br />
The state of being shipped in a few browsers can last for years before either the shipping browsers decide the feature was a mistake, or the trailing engines get enough pressure from developers to convince them to solve the problem. This is still part of the active incubation process: the leading browsers, and the people adopting what they've shipped, are gathering evidence of whether the problem is important to solve, and whether the solution is safe and works well. Just because the spec isn't changing doesn't mean a shipped incubation is dormant.<br />
If an incubation has been shipped and in active use for a while before some engines decide to implement it, this raises the bar for changes to the incubation. Before anyone has shipped, we all have to theorize about what API shape will work best not only for users, but will be implementable in multiple engines. After some browsers ship the incubation, we can get actual data about what worked and what didn't, and suggestions to change the feature's design should be based on data.<br />
When an incubation has reached a point where the community working on it believes they have a solid, workable solution to the problem - ideally, with at least a prototyped solution - they should seek to migrate it to a standards-track venue.<br />
<br />
=== Paired Incubation and Working Groups ===<br />
In a number of cases (the Immersive Web is a good example), a chartered Working Group will have a coexisting Community Group to serve as its incubator. This is a great pattern; it can improve turnaround times on moving incubation into a real standardization effort, while ensuring that the group does not fall in love with its first good idea and make it a standard.<br />
<br />
(Note this pattern replicates the earlier pattern where there was often an Interest Group associated to a Working Group).<br />
<br />
=== Incubation and Interoperability ===<br />
[[Interoperability]] across multiple implementations is the goal for the web standards platform. True Web Standards effectively require multiple independent implementations to prove interoperability before being called a “standard”. (This is a strong guideline at the W3C, for example; and support from multiple implementations is a requirement at the WHATWG as well.)<br />
The smoothest path to an interoperable standard is when multiple consumers of a feature and multiple engine implementers work together to incubate and design solutions. However, in pragmatic terms, engines have different levels of investment and ideas of what the scope of the web platform should be. What is an important problem to solve for one engine might not be an important problem to solve for another. <br />
Therefore, to further exploration of problem spaces, it is inappropriate to limit incubation of novel ideas to only those ideas that have the support of multiple engine implementers. <br />
<br />
'''Interoperability is not the immediate goal of incubation'''. Working collaboratively on features for the benefit of all is critical, but the web platform is best served by not letting the few web engine implementations function as gatekeepers for what features are acceptable to explore. As engine implementations have waned, it is increasingly likely that incubations will be in a single engine state for some time. These should not, of course, be considered web standards; neither, however, have these incubations "failed". Sometimes the lessons learned are set aside until a later date; sometimes, an engine may choose to ship their single-engine specification, especially when they have strong multi-vendor demand for a solution, even though none of the other engines see sufficient value in implementation at that time. These features cannot be considered web standards features - but in the end, they will either wither away as unnecessary, or eventually be adopted and interoperably worked on. A good example of this is Web MIDI, which garnered interest from a wide variety of industry and vendor companies, and was implemented as an incubation in Chrome in 2012; it was not until 2022 that another of the large engines picked it up and implemented it; but there is already a rich market of web-hosted music applications using it.<br />
<br />
=== The importance of maintaining shipped specifications ===<br />
There are many incubations that were designed by the community in an incubation, and have shipped implementations in one engine, but have not gained support from a second engine implementer in order to move to a Working Group. Although these cannot be considered Web standards, and are not even on the standards track to become such at this point, it is important to maintain them as specifications for eventual use (or redesign, with IPR contributions maintained) - we will specifically call these “maintained specifications”.<br />
If a feature is shipped in a web-impactful implementation and is being used by web developers, it seems inappropriate to consider that it "didn't get traction" just because other engine implementations haven't picked it up. Getting a WICG repo requires *industry* interest, not implementer interest. Engine implementers - i.e., effectively three organizations in the world - should not get the ability to be gatekeepers of incubations and early-stage web platform efforts.<br />
It is important to enable maintained specifications to live in a public forum with clear IPR guidelines. That enables users to provide ongoing feedback on the specified features and enables work on them to solicit feedback from the web industry as well as other engines - most of all, it enables other vendors to be able to pick up that work and quickly ship those features if and when interest rises, as well as provide feedback regarding any blockers they may find to shipping them.<br />
It’s also important to maintain intellectual property. From an IPR perspective, it’s easier to keep track of CLA commitments of the various contributors to an incubation when that incubation remains in the CG it was originally worked in. Once an incubation has started in a W3C Community Group, the Community CLA guarantees that the contributions to that specification include IP commitments giving people the right to use them. While those rights might survive the specification moving to a different forum, it gets harder for potential implementers to track. Many of these incubations are the result of multi-party collaboration, and their IPR commitments may still be quite relevant.<br />
<br />
=== Horizontal Review ===<br />
It is also important that incubations should be horizontally reviewed when their champions say they're ready to exit incubation. In particular, it is recommended that horizontal review tasks - for security and privacy, internationalization support, accessibility, etc - be requested prior to an engine shipping them on by default. This topic needs more exploration.<br />
<br />
== Prior Work ==<br />
* ... lots of blog posts, TPAC sessions etc. that should be linked to here. Please add some that you know of where their primary topic is "Incubation" or "How to incubate at W3C"<br />
* Everything [https://wicg.io WICG]<br />
<br />
=== Issues ===<br />
Discussions related to incubation:<br />
* Charter template: <br />
** 146: [https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/146 Include a pointer to incubation practices, location]<br />
** 472: [https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/472 Provide text for potential deliverables that might advance from incubation]<br />
* AB issues:<br />
** https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/81 (Incubation)<br />
** https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/17 (Interoperability)<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
* [[AB]]<br />
* [[implementation]]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Incubation&diff=116933Incubation2024-02-02T00:27:21Z<p>Charles: /* Prior Work */ WICG (minimal link)</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the project page for the [[AB/2024_Priorities#Incubation|2024 AB Priority Project: Incubation]], intending to define what Incubation means in a W3C context in general, how it might apply to the W3C [[Process]], and how it plays into the Success Criteria of (some) Community Group Charters, as well as entry requirements for being listed as a deliverable in Working Group Charters.<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
Questions for consideration as we (the) AB explore this priority project:<br />
* How should incubation work?<br />
* How should Work Group charters refer to incubation and future work?<br />
* At what stage of "doneness" should work move from an incubation venue to a working group?<br />
* How should an incubation group be communicating their work to a broader venue to ease acceptance as a WG deliverable?<br />
* What expectation of incubation should there be before work is accepted into a WG, or into its charter?<br />
** For now, see how the Web Apps WG refers to incubation and future work especially in relation to the WICG<br />
* What success criteria should there be for incubations? What defines success in this context?<br />
* What happens to incubations that are successfully defined and adopted in one engine, but not picked up by any other implementers?<br />
* What best practices should we define for referring to incubations?<br />
<br />
See also [https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/41 incubation assessment questions].<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
'''The point of making web standards is to enable and ensure interoperability.''' If we call something a "web standard" that doesn’t work across multiple implementations and thus doesn’t work across the web, it's a disservice to users. W3C has “interoperability across multiple implementations” bound in its DNA, and tries to ensure that the Web we have reflects the same principle. <br />
<br />
However, it is rare that a novel idea will immediately get support from multiple implementers, before even being explored; '''incubation is a way of exploring a new problem space or use case, without committing to a particular solution, or even committing to ultimately solving the problem'''. <br />
<br />
In the past, ideas for work on new areas were generally explored in a W3C Workshop or discussed in an Interest Group, while new approaches to existing work were generally raised in or brought rapidly to the context of a W3C Working Group. <br />
<br />
If new ideas fall under the scope of an existing working group, and there is support inside the group to explore the space, this can work well; however, it has some pitfalls. <br />
<br />
Exploration of novel work - new use cases and scenarios - should not be started with a commitment that a standard will be produced to solve the problem. Sometimes Working Groups become too dedicated to delivering a specification that the market considers unnecessary, so it will not be widely implemented and become a standard.<br />
<br />
Chartering a new Working Group, or adding a new deliverable to an existing WG, can create an expectation that a deliverable will be produced and become a standard. While the problem space is being explored, this isn't certain.<br />
<br />
'''Incubation''' means exploring the problem space and testing out solutions, without implying any commitment to deliver or consensus on a solution.<br />
<br />
This makes it safer for incubations to proceed without consensus, trying out multiple competing ideas. If a rough consensus emerges on an approach, possibly by combining the best of several proposals, it might be ready to move that approach to an existing or new Working Group.<br />
<br />
== The Process of Incubation ==<br />
=== Where Should Incubation Happen? ===<br />
Community Groups at the W3C are designed for incubation - in fact, by design they cannot produce what the W3C considers a Standard (a “Recommendation”, in W3C terminology). No matter what a CG calls something they're working on - e.g. an "official CG work stream" - it does not really have any standing as a standard, and should not be referred to as such. The W3C has a Standards Track that requires a Working Group. (CG incubations may take their products and hand them off to WGs, of course, but the WG has to choose to accept them.)<br />
CGs can, of course, choose what they want to work on - and communities built around particular topics will likely institute their own rules to ensure they are spending their community’s time wisely.<br />
The Web Platform Incubation Community Group (WICG) was created in 2015 as a home for incubations that did not have their own community; its bar for adoption is simply that more than one party must express interest in a proposal. WICG doesn't require any party to be an engine vendor.<br />
Incubations may move between incubation venues - for example, incubations may move from the WICG to another CG that has a more targeted community (like the Anti-Fraud Community Group, or the Private Advertising Technology CG) in order to get attention from a more focused community. Of course, if an incubation were developed enough and had consensus that it was the “right solution path”, it's time to charter and create a WG to take it to Recommendation.<br />
Likewise, as long as there are still multiple parties interested in continuing work on an incubation, it may move from one of those venues to the WICG, if the community decides they no longer want to focus on the incubation. A more focused community saying something like "this idea needs more work before we will spend our time on it" is a good reason to move such work into the WICG.<br />
<br />
=== Where Do We Go From Incubation ===<br />
Incubation should be an on-ramp to "graduating" to working groups with consensus, IPR, and consistent horizontal review. The goal of incubation is to improve the pace of iteration before the formal standards processes and requirements kick in. Formal standardization through working groups requires charters that pre-determine the deliverables of the group, but that's far too much commitment when brainstorming new ideas and trying things out.<br />
Incubation doesn't follow any particular timeline. Sometimes the whole community will decide that a particular solution is good enough for their problem, there is support from multiple engine implementers, and the incubation can migrate to a working group to finalize a specification before any browser ships the feature. Other times, a subset of the community might think the incubation is ready before more than one engine has the resources to fully investigate and approve the idea. This can prevent some working groups from adopting the incubation even while the earlier browsers proceed with shipping the feature. The earlier browsers' experience with having shipped the feature can then be used to help build consensus that it's a good thing for a working group to adopt.<br />
The state of being shipped in a few browsers can last for years before either the shipping browsers decide the feature was a mistake, or the trailing engines get enough pressure from developers to convince them to solve the problem. This is still part of the active incubation process: the leading browsers, and the people adopting what they've shipped, are gathering evidence of whether the problem is important to solve, and whether the solution is safe and works well. Just because the spec isn't changing doesn't mean a shipped incubation is dormant.<br />
If an incubation has been shipped and in active use for a while before some engines decide to implement it, this raises the bar for changes to the incubation. Before anyone has shipped, we all have to theorize about what API shape will work best not only for users, but will be implementable in multiple engines. After some browsers ship the incubation, we can get actual data about what worked and what didn't, and suggestions to change the feature's design should be based on data.<br />
When an incubation has reached a point where the community working on it believes they have a solid, workable solution to the problem - ideally, with at least a prototyped solution - they should seek to migrate it to a standards-track venue.<br />
<br />
=== Paired Incubation and Working Groups ===<br />
In a number of cases (the Immersive Web is a good example), a chartered Working Group will have a coexisting Community Group to serve as its incubator. This is a great pattern; it can improve turnaround times on moving incubation into a real standardization effort, while ensuring that the group does not fall in love with its first good idea and make it a standard.<br />
<br />
=== Incubation and Interoperability ===<br />
[[Interoperability]] across multiple implementations is the goal for the web standards platform. True Web Standards effectively require multiple independent implementations to prove interoperability before being called a “standard”. (This is a strong guideline at the W3C, for example; and support from multiple implementations is a requirement at the WHATWG as well.)<br />
The smoothest path to an interoperable standard is when multiple consumers of a feature and multiple engine implementers work together to incubate and design solutions. However, in pragmatic terms, engines have different levels of investment and ideas of what the scope of the web platform should be. What is an important problem to solve for one engine might not be an important problem to solve for another. <br />
Therefore, to further exploration of problem spaces, it is inappropriate to limit incubation of novel ideas to only those ideas that have the support of multiple engine implementers. <br />
<br />
'''Interoperability is not the immediate goal of incubation'''. Working collaboratively on features for the benefit of all is critical, but the web platform is best served by not letting the few web engine implementations function as gatekeepers for what features are acceptable to explore. As engine implementations have waned, it is increasingly likely that incubations will be in a single engine state for some time. These should not, of course, be considered web standards; neither, however, have these incubations "failed". Sometimes the lessons learned are set aside until a later date; sometimes, an engine may choose to ship their single-engine specification, especially when they have strong multi-vendor demand for a solution, even though none of the other engines see sufficient value in implementation at that time. These features cannot be considered web standards features - but in the end, they will either wither away as unnecessary, or eventually be adopted and interoperably worked on. A good example of this is Web MIDI, which garnered interest from a wide variety of industry and vendor companies, and was implemented as an incubation in Chrome in 2012; it was not until 2022 that another of the large engines picked it up and implemented it; but there is already a rich market of web-hosted music applications using it.<br />
<br />
=== The importance of maintaining shipped specifications ===<br />
There are many incubations that were designed by the community in an incubation, and have shipped implementations in one engine, but have not gained support from a second engine implementer in order to move to a Working Group. Although these cannot be considered Web standards, and are not even on the standards track to become such at this point, it is important to maintain them as specifications for eventual use (or redesign, with IPR contributions maintained) - we will specifically call these “maintained specifications”.<br />
If a feature is shipped in a web-impactful implementation and is being used by web developers, it seems inappropriate to consider that it "didn't get traction" just because other engine implementations haven't picked it up. Getting a WICG repo requires *industry* interest, not implementer interest. Engine implementers - i.e., effectively three organizations in the world - should not get the ability to be gatekeepers of incubations and early-stage web platform efforts.<br />
It is important to enable maintained specifications to live in a public forum with clear IPR guidelines. That enables users to provide ongoing feedback on the specified features and enables work on them to solicit feedback from the web industry as well as other engines - most of all, it enables other vendors to be able to pick up that work and quickly ship those features if and when interest rises, as well as provide feedback regarding any blockers they may find to shipping them.<br />
It’s also important to maintain intellectual property. From an IPR perspective, it’s easier to keep track of CLA commitments of the various contributors to an incubation when that incubation remains in the CG it was originally worked in. Once an incubation has started in a W3C Community Group, the Community CLA guarantees that the contributions to that specification include IP commitments giving people the right to use them. While those rights might survive the specification moving to a different forum, it gets harder for potential implementers to track. Many of these incubations are the result of multi-party collaboration, and their IPR commitments may still be quite relevant.<br />
<br />
=== Horizontal Review ===<br />
It is also important that incubations should be horizontally reviewed when their champions say they're ready to exit incubation. In particular, it is recommended that horizontal review tasks - for security and privacy, internationalization support, accessibility, etc - be requested prior to an engine shipping them on by default. This topic needs more exploration.<br />
<br />
== Prior Work ==<br />
* ... lots of blog posts, TPAC sessions etc. that should be linked to here. Please add some that you know of where their primary topic is "Incubation" or "How to incubate at W3C"<br />
* Everything [https://wicg.io WICG]<br />
<br />
=== Issues ===<br />
Discussions related to incubation:<br />
* Charter template: <br />
** 146: [https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/146 Include a pointer to incubation practices, location]<br />
** 472: [https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/472 Provide text for potential deliverables that might advance from incubation]<br />
* AB issues:<br />
** https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/81 (Incubation)<br />
** https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/17 (Interoperability)<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
* [[AB]]<br />
* [[implementation]]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Incubation&diff=116932Incubation2024-02-02T00:25:34Z<p>Charles: /* Introduction */ history is messier, split ideas into smaller chunks</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the project page for the [[AB/2024_Priorities#Incubation|2024 AB Priority Project: Incubation]], intending to define what Incubation means in a W3C context in general, how it might apply to the W3C [[Process]], and how it plays into the Success Criteria of (some) Community Group Charters, as well as entry requirements for being listed as a deliverable in Working Group Charters.<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
Questions for consideration as we (the) AB explore this priority project:<br />
* How should incubation work?<br />
* How should Work Group charters refer to incubation and future work?<br />
* At what stage of "doneness" should work move from an incubation venue to a working group?<br />
* How should an incubation group be communicating their work to a broader venue to ease acceptance as a WG deliverable?<br />
* What expectation of incubation should there be before work is accepted into a WG, or into its charter?<br />
** For now, see how the Web Apps WG refers to incubation and future work especially in relation to the WICG<br />
* What success criteria should there be for incubations? What defines success in this context?<br />
* What happens to incubations that are successfully defined and adopted in one engine, but not picked up by any other implementers?<br />
* What best practices should we define for referring to incubations?<br />
<br />
See also [https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/41 incubation assessment questions].<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
'''The point of making web standards is to enable and ensure interoperability.''' If we call something a "web standard" that doesn’t work across multiple implementations and thus doesn’t work across the web, it's a disservice to users. W3C has “interoperability across multiple implementations” bound in its DNA, and tries to ensure that the Web we have reflects the same principle. <br />
<br />
However, it is rare that a novel idea will immediately get support from multiple implementers, before even being explored; '''incubation is a way of exploring a new problem space or use case, without committing to a particular solution, or even committing to ultimately solving the problem'''. <br />
<br />
In the past, ideas for work on new areas were generally explored in a W3C Workshop or discussed in an Interest Group, while new approaches to existing work were generally raised in or brought rapidly to the context of a W3C Working Group. <br />
<br />
If new ideas fall under the scope of an existing working group, and there is support inside the group to explore the space, this can work well; however, it has some pitfalls. <br />
<br />
Exploration of novel work - new use cases and scenarios - should not be started with a commitment that a standard will be produced to solve the problem. Sometimes Working Groups become too dedicated to delivering a specification that the market considers unnecessary, so it will not be widely implemented and become a standard.<br />
<br />
Chartering a new Working Group, or adding a new deliverable to an existing WG, can create an expectation that a deliverable will be produced and become a standard. While the problem space is being explored, this isn't certain.<br />
<br />
'''Incubation''' means exploring the problem space and testing out solutions, without implying any commitment to deliver or consensus on a solution.<br />
<br />
This makes it safer for incubations to proceed without consensus, trying out multiple competing ideas. If a rough consensus emerges on an approach, possibly by combining the best of several proposals, it might be ready to move that approach to an existing or new Working Group.<br />
<br />
== The Process of Incubation ==<br />
=== Where Should Incubation Happen? ===<br />
Community Groups at the W3C are designed for incubation - in fact, by design they cannot produce what the W3C considers a Standard (a “Recommendation”, in W3C terminology). No matter what a CG calls something they're working on - e.g. an "official CG work stream" - it does not really have any standing as a standard, and should not be referred to as such. The W3C has a Standards Track that requires a Working Group. (CG incubations may take their products and hand them off to WGs, of course, but the WG has to choose to accept them.)<br />
CGs can, of course, choose what they want to work on - and communities built around particular topics will likely institute their own rules to ensure they are spending their community’s time wisely.<br />
The Web Platform Incubation Community Group (WICG) was created in 2015 as a home for incubations that did not have their own community; its bar for adoption is simply that more than one party must express interest in a proposal. WICG doesn't require any party to be an engine vendor.<br />
Incubations may move between incubation venues - for example, incubations may move from the WICG to another CG that has a more targeted community (like the Anti-Fraud Community Group, or the Private Advertising Technology CG) in order to get attention from a more focused community. Of course, if an incubation were developed enough and had consensus that it was the “right solution path”, it's time to charter and create a WG to take it to Recommendation.<br />
Likewise, as long as there are still multiple parties interested in continuing work on an incubation, it may move from one of those venues to the WICG, if the community decides they no longer want to focus on the incubation. A more focused community saying something like "this idea needs more work before we will spend our time on it" is a good reason to move such work into the WICG.<br />
<br />
=== Where Do We Go From Incubation ===<br />
Incubation should be an on-ramp to "graduating" to working groups with consensus, IPR, and consistent horizontal review. The goal of incubation is to improve the pace of iteration before the formal standards processes and requirements kick in. Formal standardization through working groups requires charters that pre-determine the deliverables of the group, but that's far too much commitment when brainstorming new ideas and trying things out.<br />
Incubation doesn't follow any particular timeline. Sometimes the whole community will decide that a particular solution is good enough for their problem, there is support from multiple engine implementers, and the incubation can migrate to a working group to finalize a specification before any browser ships the feature. Other times, a subset of the community might think the incubation is ready before more than one engine has the resources to fully investigate and approve the idea. This can prevent some working groups from adopting the incubation even while the earlier browsers proceed with shipping the feature. The earlier browsers' experience with having shipped the feature can then be used to help build consensus that it's a good thing for a working group to adopt.<br />
The state of being shipped in a few browsers can last for years before either the shipping browsers decide the feature was a mistake, or the trailing engines get enough pressure from developers to convince them to solve the problem. This is still part of the active incubation process: the leading browsers, and the people adopting what they've shipped, are gathering evidence of whether the problem is important to solve, and whether the solution is safe and works well. Just because the spec isn't changing doesn't mean a shipped incubation is dormant.<br />
If an incubation has been shipped and in active use for a while before some engines decide to implement it, this raises the bar for changes to the incubation. Before anyone has shipped, we all have to theorize about what API shape will work best not only for users, but will be implementable in multiple engines. After some browsers ship the incubation, we can get actual data about what worked and what didn't, and suggestions to change the feature's design should be based on data.<br />
When an incubation has reached a point where the community working on it believes they have a solid, workable solution to the problem - ideally, with at least a prototyped solution - they should seek to migrate it to a standards-track venue.<br />
<br />
=== Paired Incubation and Working Groups ===<br />
In a number of cases (the Immersive Web is a good example), a chartered Working Group will have a coexisting Community Group to serve as its incubator. This is a great pattern; it can improve turnaround times on moving incubation into a real standardization effort, while ensuring that the group does not fall in love with its first good idea and make it a standard.<br />
<br />
=== Incubation and Interoperability ===<br />
[[Interoperability]] across multiple implementations is the goal for the web standards platform. True Web Standards effectively require multiple independent implementations to prove interoperability before being called a “standard”. (This is a strong guideline at the W3C, for example; and support from multiple implementations is a requirement at the WHATWG as well.)<br />
The smoothest path to an interoperable standard is when multiple consumers of a feature and multiple engine implementers work together to incubate and design solutions. However, in pragmatic terms, engines have different levels of investment and ideas of what the scope of the web platform should be. What is an important problem to solve for one engine might not be an important problem to solve for another. <br />
Therefore, to further exploration of problem spaces, it is inappropriate to limit incubation of novel ideas to only those ideas that have the support of multiple engine implementers. <br />
<br />
'''Interoperability is not the immediate goal of incubation'''. Working collaboratively on features for the benefit of all is critical, but the web platform is best served by not letting the few web engine implementations function as gatekeepers for what features are acceptable to explore. As engine implementations have waned, it is increasingly likely that incubations will be in a single engine state for some time. These should not, of course, be considered web standards; neither, however, have these incubations "failed". Sometimes the lessons learned are set aside until a later date; sometimes, an engine may choose to ship their single-engine specification, especially when they have strong multi-vendor demand for a solution, even though none of the other engines see sufficient value in implementation at that time. These features cannot be considered web standards features - but in the end, they will either wither away as unnecessary, or eventually be adopted and interoperably worked on. A good example of this is Web MIDI, which garnered interest from a wide variety of industry and vendor companies, and was implemented as an incubation in Chrome in 2012; it was not until 2022 that another of the large engines picked it up and implemented it; but there is already a rich market of web-hosted music applications using it.<br />
<br />
=== The importance of maintaining shipped specifications ===<br />
There are many incubations that were designed by the community in an incubation, and have shipped implementations in one engine, but have not gained support from a second engine implementer in order to move to a Working Group. Although these cannot be considered Web standards, and are not even on the standards track to become such at this point, it is important to maintain them as specifications for eventual use (or redesign, with IPR contributions maintained) - we will specifically call these “maintained specifications”.<br />
If a feature is shipped in a web-impactful implementation and is being used by web developers, it seems inappropriate to consider that it "didn't get traction" just because other engine implementations haven't picked it up. Getting a WICG repo requires *industry* interest, not implementer interest. Engine implementers - i.e., effectively three organizations in the world - should not get the ability to be gatekeepers of incubations and early-stage web platform efforts.<br />
It is important to enable maintained specifications to live in a public forum with clear IPR guidelines. That enables users to provide ongoing feedback on the specified features and enables work on them to solicit feedback from the web industry as well as other engines - most of all, it enables other vendors to be able to pick up that work and quickly ship those features if and when interest rises, as well as provide feedback regarding any blockers they may find to shipping them.<br />
It’s also important to maintain intellectual property. From an IPR perspective, it’s easier to keep track of CLA commitments of the various contributors to an incubation when that incubation remains in the CG it was originally worked in. Once an incubation has started in a W3C Community Group, the Community CLA guarantees that the contributions to that specification include IP commitments giving people the right to use them. While those rights might survive the specification moving to a different forum, it gets harder for potential implementers to track. Many of these incubations are the result of multi-party collaboration, and their IPR commitments may still be quite relevant.<br />
<br />
=== Horizontal Review ===<br />
It is also important that incubations should be horizontally reviewed when their champions say they're ready to exit incubation. In particular, it is recommended that horizontal review tasks - for security and privacy, internationalization support, accessibility, etc - be requested prior to an engine shipping them on by default. This topic needs more exploration.<br />
<br />
== Prior Work ==<br />
* ... lots of blog posts, TPAC sessions etc. that should be linked to here. Please add some that you know of where their primary topic is "Incubation" or "How to incubate at W3C"<br />
<br />
=== Issues ===<br />
Discussions related to incubation:<br />
* Charter template: <br />
** 146: [https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/146 Include a pointer to incubation practices, location]<br />
** 472: [https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/472 Provide text for potential deliverables that might advance from incubation]<br />
* AB issues:<br />
** https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/81 (Incubation)<br />
** https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/17 (Interoperability)<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
* [[AB]]<br />
* [[implementation]]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Charles&diff=116613User:Charles2023-11-29T11:52:11Z<p>Charles: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've been involved in W3C since the 90's. I am a former <br />
* co-chair of [http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/ webapps],<br />
* member of the Advisory Board,<br />
* W3C team member working on WAI and Semantic Web (as it was called then),<br />
* and have been in plenty of other groups.<br />
<br />
I have worked at RMIT University, W3C itself, at Opera, Yandex, and now work at [https://consensys.io Consensys] mostly developing standards for the Ethereum ecosystem, often through the [https://entethalliance.org EEA] where I am seconded as Technical Program Director.<br />
<br />
I'm interested in lots of things - more than I have time to do.</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=TAG/MeetCandidates2023&diff=116612TAG/MeetCandidates20232023-11-29T11:47:52Z<p>Charles: /* Proposed Questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Meet the 2023 TAG Candidates Questionnaire =<br />
<br />
In the style of the [[AB/ABMeetCandidates2023|AB Meet the Candidates Questionnaire]], we are collecting questions for the TAG candidates to ask in written form and/or to prompt during the upcoming “Meet the Candidates” session on December 5th.<br />
<br />
== Proposed Questions ==<br />
<br />
Propose questions below! fantasai will organize them into a questionnaire next week.<br />
<br />
* How do you think about balancing "horizontal issues" (privacy, i18n, accessibility, ...) with the need for people to pay for their content? [[User:Charles|Chaals Nevile]] ([[User talk:Charles|talk]]) 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)<br />
* What are examples of W3C work that's not really in scope, and of work elsewhere that could be in W3C's scope? [[User:Charles|Chaals Nevile]] ([[User talk:Charles|talk]]) 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)<br />
* What is the process of taking something out of the "web platform"? [[User:Charles|Chaals Nevile]] ([[User talk:Charles|talk]]) 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)<br />
* Add your question here~</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2023-05-Sophia-FTF&diff=115608AB/2023-05-Sophia-FTF2023-03-16T14:46:50Z<p>Charles: /* Participants */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Advisory Board FTF during AC Meeting Week in Sophia-Antipolis 2023-05-08-12 ==<br />
Planning page for our Sophia meeting.<br />
<br />
Note from Alex: Some rooms have been blocked at the Moxy hotel until 7 April, from the 8th until the 12th of May 2023. We advise you to book the rooms as soon as possible. Other hotels within walking distance have also been listed on the [https://www.w3.org/2023/05/AC/venue.html#hotels on the AC hotel pages].<br />
<br />
== Participants ==<br />
{| border="1" id="attendees"<br />
|+<br />
! Name<br />
! Attendance<br />
! Timezone <br /><br />
(if not in person)<br />
! Arrival<br />
! Departure<br />
! Hotel <br /><br />
(optional to share)<br />
! Food requirements<br />
(if in person)<br />
! Notes<br />
<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Chris Wilson</span><br />
| in person <br />
| -<br />
| 2023-05-07 NCE arr 18:45<br />
| 2023-05-13 NCE dpt 10:05<br />
| Royal Antibes Hotel<br />
| omnivore <br />
| will have car to transfer to INRIA<br />
|-<br />
<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Tantek Çelik</span><br />
| in person<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Elika J Etemad</span><br />
| in person<br />
| -<br />
| probably Monday morning<br />
| probably by train to Paris<br />
| Moxy<br />
| gluten-free appreciated<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Florian Rivoal</span><br />
| in person<br />
| -<br />
| probably Monday in Sofia, maybe a day or two earlier in Nice / Antibes, arriving by plane in Nice<br />
| leaving by plane from Nice, probably Sunday-ish<br />
| Moxy ?<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Qing An</span><br />
| in person<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Tatsuya Igarashi</span><br />
| in person<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Tzviya Siegman</span><br />
| remote <br />
| GMT-5:00<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Heejin Chung</span><br />
| remote<br />
| GMT+9:00 <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Avneesh Singh</span><br />
| remote <br />
| GMT-5:00<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Wei Ding</span><br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Charles Nevile</span><br />
| In person<br />
|<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| I like all food things<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
<br />
|- class="p-attendee h-card"<br />
| <span class="p-name">Ralph Swick</span><br />
| in person <br />
| -<br />
| 2023-05-08<br />
| 2023-05-13<br />
| <br />
| omnivore <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
<br />
<br />
|}</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2023_Priorities&diff=115487AB/2023 Priorities2023-02-02T14:28:58Z<p>Charles: chaals to Vision/Principles</p>
<hr />
<div>= AB Priorities for 2022-2023 Academic Year =<br />
<br />
See [https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Proposed%20Priority Proposed Priorities] in GitHub<br />
<br />
= Priorities of the Year =<br />
<br />
== Finishing off Director-free ==<br />
* Lead: Florian<br />
* Participants: Florian, Chris<br />
* Summary: Finish the Director-Free process this year - not only Formal Objections and the Council, but including other Director responsibilities such as setting the technical vision for W3C. Also matching edits to the Process to have governing documents match.<br />
* Additional background material:<br />
** [https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/AB/Role_of_the_Director Survey of things the Director nominally does]<br />
** [https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/director-free/ Work-in-Progress branch of a director-free version of the W3C Process]<br />
<br />
== Vision/Principles ==<br />
* Lead: Tantek, Avneesh<br />
* Participants: Dingwei, (David is no longer AB), Chris, chaals<br />
* Summary:<br />
** Define the W3C vision with principles & values to guide our role in the evolution of the Web platform, and the strategy for doing so.<br />
** Detail the values, pillars, challenges, potential pitfalls, and major benefits we expect the Web to bring in this next phase, documented in https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/tree/main/Vision.<br />
** Open issues on project: https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3AVision+sort%3Aupdated-desc<br />
<br />
== Finish the LE transition, handoff to BoD ==<br />
* Lead: AB liaisons?<br />
* Participants:<br />
* Summary: Figure out how the AB can assist the BoD.<br />
<br />
== The 4 Is: Interoperable, independent, implementation, Incubation ==<br />
* Lead: Chris, Judy<br />
* Participants: Tzviya, Igarashi<br />
* Summary: Produce guidance on how to manage the process of incubation, and how interoperability and implementations factor in.<br />
<br />
== Improving the sense of community ==<br />
* Lead: Léonie, Tzviya, Heejin<br />
* Participants: Igarashi<br />
* Summary: Rebuilding sense of collegiality in the AB, provide Team support and encouragement, et al.<br />
<br />
= Ongoing Responsibilities =<br />
* Diversity and Inclusion<br />
* Improving working relationship with W3M<br />
* Representing the membership and bringing ideas of membership forward<br />
* Evolving and maintaining the Process<br />
* assist team with Member meeting planning<br />
* FO Councils<br />
* Helping with Member engagement. Driving efforts to ensure Member Continuity into 2023 as we move to a legal entity. The recent meeting between the AB and Credential Community Group is a good example of this type of action.<br />
* Continue to advise the Team about hybrid meetings. What meetings should be in person? What should be virtual? Hybrid? What should health rules look like. An early example of this will be AC 2023 planning.<br />
* At some point, the AB should think about how we work, including group structures, specifically how we divide into WGs, BGs, IGs, and CGs, and the two (or more) flavors of CG – those related to our other groups and operations, and truly Community Groups...<br />
<br />
= Previously =<br />
* [[AB/2022_Priorities]]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Tools&diff=113723Talk:Tools2021-08-13T05:53:26Z<p>Charles: Need some advice on maintenance</p>
<hr />
<div>This seems like a page that never happened. Is it worth moving the old page content here, or getting rid of this one in favour of that one?</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=SVG_Links&diff=113643SVG Links2021-07-14T04:58:39Z<p>Charles: fix the code samples so they are legible as intended</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Just like (X)HTML, SVG supports linking to content within the document and to external resources, for example other SVG documents, HTML or XML documents, images, videos or any other kind of typical resource you may want to link to. This tutorial will walk you through how to create links in SVG using XLink—the W3C spec for linking in XML—and cover any specific SVG-related concerns that you man need to know.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you are not familiar with the <code>a</code> element or the <code>href</code> attribute in HTML I recommend reading Christian Heilmann’s [[HTML_links_-_lets_build_a_web|HTML links – let’s build a web!]] article before we start. It is also recommended that you read my article to familiarise yourself with the basics of SVG, if you are not already familiar.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: XML doesn’t support linking by default, so the situation is slightly more complex than [[HTML/Training/Hyper_Links|HTML links]]. But don't despair - XLink is still not that complicated to get the hang of; after reading this article it should present you with no trouble.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Getting started with SVG links ==<br />
<br />
In HTML I can simply set up a link from one document to another using an <code>a</code> element and an <code>href</code> attribute like so:<br />
<br />
<br />
<code>&lt;a href="http<nowiki />://example.com/link/"&gt;An example link&lt;/a&gt;</code><br />
<br />
<br />
The <code>a</code> element is contained in the linking document (the local resource), and the <code>href</code> attribute points to the document or resource I want to link to (the remote resource). All very straight forward.<br />
<br />
<br />
In XML and therefore SVG, there is no magic <code>href</code> attribute that can create links. Instead you have to use a technology called XLink to provide this functionality. XLink is a very powerful technology that provides a lot of complex functionality, such as one-to-many links, but for SVG we only have to care about simple one-to-one links, as that is all that is supported in the [[SVG specification]].<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Setting up the XLink namespace ===<br />
<br />
You've already met XML namespaces when defining a SVG template. Usually an SVG document uses the default namespace like so:<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;svg '''xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg"''' version="1.1"&gt;<br />
…content goes here…<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the default namespace is taken up by SVG, if you want to to define the XLink namespace on the SVG element you have to give it a prefix, which by general convention is <code>xlink</code> (although it can be anything you please). Lets add the XLink namespace to our <code>svg</code> element:<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" '''xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"''' version="1.1"&gt;<br />
…content goes here…<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
As you can see, the <code>xlink</code> prefix is defined using the <code>xmlns</code> attribute, a colon (:) and the desired prefix. The value is then set to the standard XLink namespace.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now the XLink namespace is set up, any time you want to refer to a XLink element or attribute on the <code>svg</code> element or any of its children, you have to use it in combination with the <code>xlink</code> prefix. The best way to explain this is with an example, so lets start to set up a similar link to the HTML link above.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== A simple SVG link using XLink ===<br />
<br />
Next we need to use the SVG <code>a</code> element in our document to define a link, and the <code>text</code> element to define the link text:<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1"&gt;<br />
'''&lt;a&gt;<br />
&lt;text x="10" y="25"&gt;An example link.&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;'''<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
Now we have to add the XLink <code>href</code> attribute to the <code>a</code> element to specify the destination of the link, like so:<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1"&gt;<br />
&lt;a &lt;strong&gt;xlink:href="http<nowiki />://example.com/link/"&lt;/strong&gt;&gt;<br />
&lt;text x="10" y="25" &gt;An example link.&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
The <code>xlink</code> namespace is added before the attribute name, using a colon to separate the prefix from the attribute.<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: It is possible to define the type of link you are using as a simple link using <code>xlink:type="simple"</code> on the <code>a</code> element, but this is optional and simple links are the only type of XLink links that are valid in SVG anyway.<br />
<br />
<br />
Using the <code>a</code> element in SVG doesn't automatically style the link like it does in HTML, so you may want to add some styling to the text, as seen in the completed .<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing worth remembering is that to set the colour of the text in SVG you must use the <code>fill</code> CSS property or XML attribute, not <code>color</code> as in HTML. The text must also be contained in a <code>text</code> element nested inside the link, unlike HTML where a <code>a</code> element can contain text immediately between its start and end tags.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Adding additional functionality to links ==<br />
<br />
You may recall that HTML links can have a <code>title</code> attribute to describe additional details about the link. This is also available with XLink in SVG:<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;a xlink:href= "http<nowiki />://example.com/link/" '''xlink:title="The link leads to an example page that is of little interest"'''&gt;<br />
&lt;text x="10" y="25" &gt;An example link.&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;<br />
<br />
If you try out my example, you will see that a tooltip will show up when you hover over the link.<br />
<br />
<br />
Following a link defaults to opening the linked resource in the same window or tab. You can change this behaviour by using the XLink <code>show</code> attribute. Using a value of <code>replace</code> specifies the default behaviour, while changing it to <code>new</code> will open the link in a new window or tab.<br />
<br />
<br />
&lt;a xlink:href= "http<nowiki />://example.com/link/" xlink:title="The link opens an example page in a new tab/window" '''xlink:show="new"'''&gt;<br />
&lt;text x="10" y="25" &gt;An example link.&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;<br />
<br />
=== Linking to a specific point in a document ===<br />
<br />
Also like HTML, it is possible to link to a specific point in a document (both in local and remote documents) by specifying an <code>id</code> on the element you want to link to and adding a fragment identifier to the link. This can be achieved in almost exactly the same way as with HTML:<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1"&gt;<br />
&lt;a '''xlink:href="http<nowiki />://www.someurl.com#someid"'''&gt;<br />
&lt;text x="10" y="25" &gt;An example link.&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
You can also link to a specific part of a SVG document, using the fragment identifier combined with the <code>view</code> element. This can be useful for defining an area of the SVG file that you'd like to zoom in or out of when the user clicks on a link or a button.<br />
<br />
<br />
The fragment identifier works in exactly the same way as the example above, while the <code>view</code> element is used to specify the size of the viewport after the URL has been followed. I will show this with another example:<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1" width="100%" height="100%"&gt;<br />
&lt;a xlink:href="#target"&gt;<br />
&lt;text x="10" y="25"&gt;Zoom in on shape below&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;<br />
<br />
'''&lt;view id="target" viewBox="600 600 50 50"/&gt;<br />
&lt;rect x="600" y="600" width="50" height="50"/&gt;'''<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
The <code>view</code> element requires at least two attributes, the <code>id</code> so that the fragment identifier can point to it, and the <code>viewBox</code>. The <code>viewBox</code> attribute sets the size of the viewport with four values, Minimum x co-ordinate, Minimum y co-ordinate, width and height. When the link is followed, the browser will set the viewport to the co-ordinates and width and height specified on the corresponding view element. Behind the scenes, the browser automatically applies transitions and scaling for you to make the content fit correctly in the <code>viewBox</code>.<br />
<br />
<br />
With the example above, you may notice that the rectangle doesn’t fill your browser window. This is because by default it preserves the aspect ratio of the elements. There is a way to define this behaviour using the <code>preserveAspectRatio</code> attribute. I will cover this in a later article, but if you just want ignore the aspect ratio, you can set the value to <code>none</code> like so:<br />
<br />
&lt;view id="target" viewBox="600 600 50 50" '''preserveAspectRatio="none"'''/&gt;<br />
<br />
=== Embedding external resources in an SVG document ===<br />
<br />
As well as linking to separate documents, it is possible to embed resources such as images into an SVG document in a very similar manner, again using the XLink href attribute. Images can either be raster images such as PNGs and JPEGS, or another SVG file:<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1"&gt;<br />
'''&lt;image xlink:href="circle.png" x="10" y="25" height="100" width="100"&gt;<br />
&lt;desc&gt;A perfect circle&lt;/desc&gt;<br />
&lt;/image&gt;'''<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
The <code>desc</code> element provides a means to provide alternative text, in the same way that the HTML <code>alt</code> attribute does. This will be useful once screen readers begin to support SVG.<br />
<br />
<br />
Try out my example.<br />
<br />
<br />
Embedding an SVG image works in exactly the same way:<br />
<br />
&lt;image '''xlink:href="circle.svg"''' x="10" y="25" height="100" width="100"&gt;<br />
&lt;desc&gt;A perfect circle&lt;/desc&gt;<br />
&lt;/image&gt;<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: The XLink <code>show</code> attribute is used with a value of <code>embed</code> to include resources in the document, but as this is the default (and only) value allowed for the <code>show</code> attribute on the <code>image</code> element, it can be omitted.<br />
<br />
<br />
Fragments of SVG can be embedded in the document using the <code>use</code> element - this includes SVG from external SVG files, and fragments that have already appeared in the same document. This allows SVG elements to be defined once and reused many times, and will be the subject of an additional article on reusable SVG, to be published in the future on dev.opera.com.<br />
<br />
<br />
SVG Tiny 1.2 and above allow for embedding of audio and video, but this is not widely implemented. At the time of writing this only works in a .<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Linking multiple elements ===<br />
<br />
In HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0/1.1, the <code>a</code> element is inline and thus can not legally contain block level child elements. If you want to for example make an image and adjacent text into the same link, you have to specify additional <code>a</code> elements with the same <code>href</code> value. There is no such restriction with SVG - it is perfectly valid to do the following:<br />
<br />
&lt;svg xmlns="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http<nowiki />://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" version="1.1"&gt;<br />
&lt;defs&gt;<br />
&lt;linearGradient id="badgeGradient"&gt;<br />
&lt;stop offset="0"/&gt;<br />
&lt;stop offset="1"/&gt;<br />
&lt;/linearGradient&gt;<br />
&lt;/defs&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;g id="heading"&gt;<br />
'''&lt;a xlink:href= "http<nowiki />://www.opera.com/"&gt;<br />
&lt;path id="badge" d="M 29.6,22.8 C 29.2,23.4 24.3,22.4 23.8,22.9 C 23.4,23.3 24.3,28.3 23.8,28.6 C 23.2,28.9 19.4,25.6 18.8,25.8 C 18.2,26.0 16.5,30.7 15.8,30.7 C 15.2,30.7 13.5,26.0 12.9,25.8 C 12.3,25.6 8.5,28.9 7.9,28.6 C 7.4,28.3 8.3,23.3 7.9,22.9 C 7.4,22.4 2.4,23.4 2.1,22.8 C 1.8,22.3 5.1,18.4 4.9,17.8 C 4.8,17.2 0.0,15.5 0.0,14.9 C 0.0,14.3 4.8,12.6 4.9,12.0 C 5.1,11.4 1.8,7.5 2.1,7.0 C 2.4,6.4 7.4,7.3 7.9,6.9 C 8.3,6.5 7.4,1.5 7.9,1.2 C 8.5,0.9 12.3,4.1 12.9,4.0 C 13.5,3.8 15.2,-0.8 15.8,-0.8 C 16.5,-0.8 18.2,3.8 18.8,4.0 C 19.4,4.1 23.2,0.9 23.8,1.2 C 24.3,1.5 23.4,6.5 23.8,6.9 C 24.3,7.3 29.2,6.4 29.6,7.0 C 29.9,7.5 26.6,11.4 26.8,12.0 C 26.9,12.6 31.7,14.3 31.7,14.9 C 31.7,15.5 26.9,17.2 26.8,17.8 C 26.6,18.4 29.9,22.3 29.6,22.8 z"/&gt; <br />
&lt;text id="label" x="5" y="20" transform = "rotate(-15 10 10)"&gt;New&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;text id="title" x="40" y="20"&gt;Opera Browser&lt;/text&gt;<br />
&lt;/a&gt;'''<br />
&lt;/g&gt;<br />
<br />
&lt;/svg&gt;<br />
<br />
Try it out by viewing my example.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
After reading this article you should be able to link to documents and resources in SVG using XLink simple links. We have covered the basics or creating a link in SVG using the <code>a</code> element, adding additional information using the XLink <code>title</code> attribute, using fragment identifiers to point to a specific part of a document, and how to embed images in a SVG document using the <code>image</code> element. We have also covered a slightly more complex example, using multiple elements, that can all point to the same destination using one <code>a</code> element.</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=111328AB/2020 Priorities2020-04-18T09:39:49Z<p>Charles: /* Current Work areas in W3C */ most active CGs</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
Related issues are all available on the [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Priority%20task | ab-memberonly repository]].<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Legal%20entity | Legal entity open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
* Supporters: Jay Kishigami, Hongru Zhu<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Strategy | Strategy open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== scope ===<br />
'''Goals:'''<br />
* Determine strategic goals.<br />
* Refine the identity and scope of organization.<br />
* Define the values of the organization.<br />
* Make it visible to W3C community and beyond.<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
<br />
The discussion in strategy session in November 2019 AB meeting gave some pointers for moving ahead. The work will start from these pointer, and the high level plan is as follows:<br />
* Connect the dots, considering the inputs given by AB in November 2019 meeting and the objectives defined by W3M.<br />
* Determine the strategic goals, scope and values of the organization, with inputs from stake holders.<br />
* Prioritize the strategic goals.<br />
* Outline the action plan in collaboration with the management.<br />
* Make the strategic goals, scope and values visible to W3C members and beyond.<br />
<br />
February 2020 status:<br />
The inputs were provided by AB in November 2019 meeting and the overview of management objectives was provided by the management in January 2020. The work in progress document is at:<br />
https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/W3C-strategy-development<br />
The first draft of strategic goals are identified, and we are now working on assigning priorities to these strategic goals.<br />
<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Form%20and%20structure | Form and structure open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Explore the model under which W3C operates - namely that Members pay dues, but work that is often done by volunteers (in other standards organizations) is done by the staff<br />
** Examine the assumptions about what work would be done by the staff when W3C started, and compare that to what happens today.<br />
** Examine the total cost of this model against the costs of other models<br />
** Examine the efficacy (quantity, quality) of this approach against other models<br />
** Assess whether things should be done differently when W3C becomes its own legal entity.<br />
<br />
=== Related topic ===<br />
<br />
* In the 25 February AB meeting there was a relationship raised between this project and the project called "Role of the Director" or "Director-free" (DF), i.e. the plans to restructure roles and responsibilities within W3C when Tim steps down as Director. The question arose whether the DF project needed to consider a broader shift in W3C's operating model.<br />
* Most of the AB felt that the DF project should continue with its more modest restructure assumptions, but the discussion made "W3C form and structure" seem more urgent.<br />
* Accordingly, the next step for the "W3C form and structure" project should be to build a diverse team of people from our community to study this issue.<br />
* A good first step would be some announcement to the AC; launching this project; getting participants into this project, and explaining how it relates to DF<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Incubation | Incubation open issues]]<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: Define Incubation, create incubation best practices, broaden review of incubation beyond WICG<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Notes ====<br />
Some of this is documented for WICG in the WICG admin repo: https://github.com/WICG/admin. However, there isn't only one process for incubation - the goal of the pattern of incubation is to do early exploration, and those explorations may explicitly fail. (Chris Wilson and Yoav Weiss talked about incubation as a part of the standards process a bit at Chrome Dev Summit 2019: https://youtu.be/y3EZx_b-7tk?t=781). Note that there's different subtleties depending on how "incubation" is done - for example the way the Immersive Web CG/WG does it is detailed at https://github.com/immersive-web/administrivia/blob/master/transitioning-issues-from-cg-to-wg.md. The CSS WG does their own version internally - IIRC, they used to more carefully mark the instability of their specs at https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work for early-stage specs (the CSS process doc does talk about how the CSS Snapshot doesn't include modules that don't have high stability, but doesn't talk about that in terms of the journey of a feature from idea to standard).<br />
<br />
The transition of an incubation to a "specification" (aka a REC-track "standard") isn't well defined, partly because there's no single path there, either. Some features in incubation go into the HTML or DOM specs, or are subsumed into other specs; many, to be honest, are awaiting broader implementer interest, which would hold them up in standards. Is that success or failure?<br />
<br />
We have begun speaking with members who have expressed particular interest or concern in this topic. One person asked me to consider incubation in this context:<br />
* how is the process (including incubation) supposed to work when Google is moving faster than everyone else? how can W3C accommodate those who can't work at Google's speed?<br />
<br />
See (https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/) definition from 2016.<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Process | Process open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Registries ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Make it possible to maintain a Registry at W3C<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Registries are a type of report that is available in other standards bodies but not at w3c, and w3c participants have expressed the need for. We have high level agreement on what making them work here would entail, but still need to converge on the concrete realization.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Complete, then merge into P2020, a process for publishing and maintaining registries<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
=== Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Finalize the Evereblue/teal<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Finalize all necessary edits to fully bake ever* into process 2020, work with Wendy and PSIG to get an updated Patent Policy that supports it, and all the supporting documentation to ease review and approval by the AC <br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Process 2020 with everblue/teal integrated<br />
* Updated Patent Policy supporting Process 2020<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman, Avneesh Singh and Léonie Watson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Globalization | Globalization open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Horizontal issue'''<br />
* 1. I18n<br />
*2. Diversity and Inclusion(tzviya and Angel)<br />
*3. Translation at TPAC 2020 (Jay and Léonie)<br />
We are preparing the captioning and translation system with Nomi team.<br />
Tentative schedule is:<br />
** phase 1 captioning + CJK translation with quality control for the coming virtual AC mtg<br />
** Phase 2 Holistic translations system for all mtg including WG<br />
I hope all AB support this trial.<br />
<br />
'''Vertical issue'''<br />
*4. Digital Currency--(Jay and ?)<br />
** Blockchain economy, incl. Lebra<br />
<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Role%20of%20the%20Director | Role of the director open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Goals:''' Be ready for when the Founding Director steps down<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
The founding Director will eventually be leaving his role. Many parts of W3C formally depend on him to function. Continue the efforts started in 2019 to Evolve the various governing documents so that W3C can be fully functional in the absence of a Director. There isn't a strict deadline within the time-frame of Process 2021, but it would be good to be ready by then. Even if not fully finalized, the larger part of the work should be completed.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* An integrated set of changes that could be landed into the Process and related documents to fully operate without a Director.<br />
* Some parts of the previous items may optionally be available in individual Pull Requests for possible adoption while the Founding Director is still present.<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Next%20big%20thing | Next big thing open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: To explore the next big technical directions that matter to the community and the long-term development of the Web.<br />
* Description: Forward looking in industry, discussion widely with members to identify and incubate potential topics, such as voice assistance, AI, etc., and move the identified topics forward in standardization.<br />
* Deliverables: Target area list, possible roadmap for incubation, member participation intention list, and present the topics in TPAC 2020.<br />
* Progress updated by Judy Zhu (by Feb 2020):<br />
** Initially collected topics: <br />
*** From Members: WebRTC.Next, V2E (Voice to everything, such as voice API), Video (e.g. to support remote participation), Semantic search engine, knowledge graph, Progressive Hybrid App (hybrid rendering based on Web and Native), etc etc<br />
*** Ref---From Strategy Funnel: MiniApps, Improving Web Advertising; workshops or potential workshops in Web and Machine Learning, Maps, Media Packaging, Voice Interaction. Potential WG from WebGPU CG. <br />
** Over All Plan: <br />
*** Step1: input from Strategy team: Wendy, Judy, and Angel reviewed W3C Strategy Funnel<br />
**** Other possible resources? <br />
*** Step2: input from community: we will design a survey as a tool to invite feedback from Team, Chairs, AB, TAG and AC by the end of March<br />
**** Offer lightning talks/short explainers/video, and other means of info-sharing<br />
*** Step3: info collection report: we will generate a report based on the community feedback by Mid Apr, and discuss the follow up plan with AB and W3C team. <br />
*** Step4: report to TPAC or AC meeting.<br />
**** Consider various means of advancing work, including virtual workshops, online interaction, WG formation<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporter: Avneesh Singh<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Scope%20of%20the%20W3C | Scope of the W3C open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goal: To consider what the scope of the W3C should be.<br />
* Description: The web has existed for nearly three decades and the W3C for a little less. Both the web and the W3C have changed over that time and we now want to find out whether we (the W3C membership) have a common understanding of what the scope of the W3C might be.<br />
* Deliverables: Proposed definition of scope of the W3C.<br />
<br />
The first step is to gather information by:<br />
* Looking at documents published to /TR over the past 20 years.<br />
* Looking at existing areas of work (WG and IG).<br />
* Talking with members from different industries, verticals and interests to get a qualitative sense of where we are.<br />
* Looking at what's incubating (WG and CG).<br />
<br />
===Current Work areas in W3C===<br />
==== Web for all ====<br />
;WG deliverables<br />
:Accessibility Guidelines, ARIA, Education and outreach, Web app security, Web Payment Security, Web Authentication<br />
;Review (and resultant deliverables)<br />
:APA, I18n, Privacy, Patents and Standards<br />
<br />
==== Browser Web ====<br />
; W3C<br />
: Testing and Tools, (CSS), Pointer Events, Service Workers, SVG, Fonts, Performance, RTC, WebAssembly, Web Applications (assorted APIs etc), Devices and Sensors<br />
; Whatwg<br />
: HTML, DOM, microdata<br />
<br />
==== Information management ====<br />
<br />
Dataset Exchange, JSON-LD, DID, Verifiable Credentials, spatial data, distributed tracing<br />
<br />
==== Like browsers ====<br />
<br />
:Audio, Automotive, Media, second screen, Timed Text, Publishing, Audio, Web of Things, Immersive Web, Web Payments<br />
;IGs<br />
: Media and entertainment<br />
<br />
==== Other stuff ====<br />
<br />
Web & Networks<br />
<br />
=== Top 20 "Active" CGs ===<br />
(In order as per [https://w3c.github.io/cg-monitor/ W3C's activity dashboard], excluding those that match existing Working Groups and process groups)<br />
<br />
* Web NFC<br />
* XProc next<br />
* Open Active<br />
* GPU for the Web<br />
* Maps for HTML<br />
* Chainpoint<br />
* AI Knowledge Representation<br />
* Bioschemas for llfe sciences<br />
* Interledger payments<br />
* Data Privacy vocabularies and control<br />
* Shape Expressions<br />
* MathML refresh<br />
* Solid<br />
* Xforms users<br />
* Improving Web Advertising BG<br />
* Hydra<br />
* Talent Marketplace Signaling<br />
* Entity Reconciliation<br />
* Ontology Lexica<br />
* Music Notation<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and Chaals Nevile<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Membership | Membership open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
;Areas to explore<br />
: Create an executive meeting place in W3C, to ensure higher levels of corporate commitment.<br />
: Account management of small members: Send an automated email annually to all Members. Encourage feedback and address the feedback through ongoing dialog <br />
: Explore pricing as a means to encourage long-term membership<br />
: Add components to W3C's value which will ensure greater value to Members (e.g. certification)<br />
;Approach<br />
: Create a survey to solicit input from membership - what do they see as the value?<br />
: They should know! They joined for a reason. Let's hear that reason.<br />
: Once we know their reasons we can put together a new package which describes the Member Value.<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Tooling | Tooling open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: Develop a tooling policy for the W3C, and work with the SysTeam on key priorities<br />
* Description: We use a variety of tools both for the development of deliverables (e.g. Github, Bikeshed, ReSpec etc.) and for the operation of the W3C (e.g. Webex, IRC, the bots). A number of groups are experimenting with other tools as well (Slack, Converse, WebRTC and other call-in and conference systems), and we have some volunteer tools (Bikeshed was one once, and the Github-bot comes to mind). We need to work out what principles apply; what tools can groups use, that have suitable accessibility (both for international audiences, and in the traditional sense), transparency, longevity etc. We have some obvious long-standing problems (calendaring is one). We also have a discoverability question: if one is not a member of a WG but wants to investigate something, or help on a topic, can you find where conversations occur, decisions are made, calls happen, etc.?<br />
* Deliverables: A standing [[W3C Tooling Policy]] document, probably supported by guidelines and recommendations<br />
<br />
* Status: We plan to work on at least some aspects of this for Process 2021, in conjunction with work on Registries. There are also notes on the [[Tooling Considerations]] page</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=111327AB/2020 Priorities2020-04-18T09:19:52Z<p>Charles: /* More browsers */</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
Related issues are all available on the [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Priority%20task | ab-memberonly repository]].<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Legal%20entity | Legal entity open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
* Supporters: Jay Kishigami, Hongru Zhu<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Strategy | Strategy open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== scope ===<br />
'''Goals:'''<br />
* Determine strategic goals.<br />
* Refine the identity and scope of organization.<br />
* Define the values of the organization.<br />
* Make it visible to W3C community and beyond.<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
<br />
The discussion in strategy session in November 2019 AB meeting gave some pointers for moving ahead. The work will start from these pointer, and the high level plan is as follows:<br />
* Connect the dots, considering the inputs given by AB in November 2019 meeting and the objectives defined by W3M.<br />
* Determine the strategic goals, scope and values of the organization, with inputs from stake holders.<br />
* Prioritize the strategic goals.<br />
* Outline the action plan in collaboration with the management.<br />
* Make the strategic goals, scope and values visible to W3C members and beyond.<br />
<br />
February 2020 status:<br />
The inputs were provided by AB in November 2019 meeting and the overview of management objectives was provided by the management in January 2020. The work in progress document is at:<br />
https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/W3C-strategy-development<br />
The first draft of strategic goals are identified, and we are now working on assigning priorities to these strategic goals.<br />
<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Form%20and%20structure | Form and structure open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Explore the model under which W3C operates - namely that Members pay dues, but work that is often done by volunteers (in other standards organizations) is done by the staff<br />
** Examine the assumptions about what work would be done by the staff when W3C started, and compare that to what happens today.<br />
** Examine the total cost of this model against the costs of other models<br />
** Examine the efficacy (quantity, quality) of this approach against other models<br />
** Assess whether things should be done differently when W3C becomes its own legal entity.<br />
<br />
=== Related topic ===<br />
<br />
* In the 25 February AB meeting there was a relationship raised between this project and the project called "Role of the Director" or "Director-free" (DF), i.e. the plans to restructure roles and responsibilities within W3C when Tim steps down as Director. The question arose whether the DF project needed to consider a broader shift in W3C's operating model.<br />
* Most of the AB felt that the DF project should continue with its more modest restructure assumptions, but the discussion made "W3C form and structure" seem more urgent.<br />
* Accordingly, the next step for the "W3C form and structure" project should be to build a diverse team of people from our community to study this issue.<br />
* A good first step would be some announcement to the AC; launching this project; getting participants into this project, and explaining how it relates to DF<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Incubation | Incubation open issues]]<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: Define Incubation, create incubation best practices, broaden review of incubation beyond WICG<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Notes ====<br />
Some of this is documented for WICG in the WICG admin repo: https://github.com/WICG/admin. However, there isn't only one process for incubation - the goal of the pattern of incubation is to do early exploration, and those explorations may explicitly fail. (Chris Wilson and Yoav Weiss talked about incubation as a part of the standards process a bit at Chrome Dev Summit 2019: https://youtu.be/y3EZx_b-7tk?t=781). Note that there's different subtleties depending on how "incubation" is done - for example the way the Immersive Web CG/WG does it is detailed at https://github.com/immersive-web/administrivia/blob/master/transitioning-issues-from-cg-to-wg.md. The CSS WG does their own version internally - IIRC, they used to more carefully mark the instability of their specs at https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work for early-stage specs (the CSS process doc does talk about how the CSS Snapshot doesn't include modules that don't have high stability, but doesn't talk about that in terms of the journey of a feature from idea to standard).<br />
<br />
The transition of an incubation to a "specification" (aka a REC-track "standard") isn't well defined, partly because there's no single path there, either. Some features in incubation go into the HTML or DOM specs, or are subsumed into other specs; many, to be honest, are awaiting broader implementer interest, which would hold them up in standards. Is that success or failure?<br />
<br />
We have begun speaking with members who have expressed particular interest or concern in this topic. One person asked me to consider incubation in this context:<br />
* how is the process (including incubation) supposed to work when Google is moving faster than everyone else? how can W3C accommodate those who can't work at Google's speed?<br />
<br />
See (https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/) definition from 2016.<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Process | Process open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Registries ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Make it possible to maintain a Registry at W3C<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Registries are a type of report that is available in other standards bodies but not at w3c, and w3c participants have expressed the need for. We have high level agreement on what making them work here would entail, but still need to converge on the concrete realization.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Complete, then merge into P2020, a process for publishing and maintaining registries<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
=== Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Finalize the Evereblue/teal<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Finalize all necessary edits to fully bake ever* into process 2020, work with Wendy and PSIG to get an updated Patent Policy that supports it, and all the supporting documentation to ease review and approval by the AC <br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Process 2020 with everblue/teal integrated<br />
* Updated Patent Policy supporting Process 2020<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman, Avneesh Singh and Léonie Watson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Globalization | Globalization open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Horizontal issue'''<br />
* 1. I18n<br />
*2. Diversity and Inclusion(tzviya and Angel)<br />
*3. Translation at TPAC 2020 (Jay and Léonie)<br />
We are preparing the captioning and translation system with Nomi team.<br />
Tentative schedule is:<br />
** phase 1 captioning + CJK translation with quality control for the coming virtual AC mtg<br />
** Phase 2 Holistic translations system for all mtg including WG<br />
I hope all AB support this trial.<br />
<br />
'''Vertical issue'''<br />
*4. Digital Currency--(Jay and ?)<br />
** Blockchain economy, incl. Lebra<br />
<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Role%20of%20the%20Director | Role of the director open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Goals:''' Be ready for when the Founding Director steps down<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
The founding Director will eventually be leaving his role. Many parts of W3C formally depend on him to function. Continue the efforts started in 2019 to Evolve the various governing documents so that W3C can be fully functional in the absence of a Director. There isn't a strict deadline within the time-frame of Process 2021, but it would be good to be ready by then. Even if not fully finalized, the larger part of the work should be completed.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* An integrated set of changes that could be landed into the Process and related documents to fully operate without a Director.<br />
* Some parts of the previous items may optionally be available in individual Pull Requests for possible adoption while the Founding Director is still present.<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Next%20big%20thing | Next big thing open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: To explore the next big technical directions that matter to the community and the long-term development of the Web.<br />
* Description: Forward looking in industry, discussion widely with members to identify and incubate potential topics, such as voice assistance, AI, etc., and move the identified topics forward in standardization.<br />
* Deliverables: Target area list, possible roadmap for incubation, member participation intention list, and present the topics in TPAC 2020.<br />
* Progress updated by Judy Zhu (by Feb 2020):<br />
** Initially collected topics: <br />
*** From Members: WebRTC.Next, V2E (Voice to everything, such as voice API), Video (e.g. to support remote participation), Semantic search engine, knowledge graph, Progressive Hybrid App (hybrid rendering based on Web and Native), etc etc<br />
*** Ref---From Strategy Funnel: MiniApps, Improving Web Advertising; workshops or potential workshops in Web and Machine Learning, Maps, Media Packaging, Voice Interaction. Potential WG from WebGPU CG. <br />
** Over All Plan: <br />
*** Step1: input from Strategy team: Wendy, Judy, and Angel reviewed W3C Strategy Funnel<br />
**** Other possible resources? <br />
*** Step2: input from community: we will design a survey as a tool to invite feedback from Team, Chairs, AB, TAG and AC by the end of March<br />
**** Offer lightning talks/short explainers/video, and other means of info-sharing<br />
*** Step3: info collection report: we will generate a report based on the community feedback by Mid Apr, and discuss the follow up plan with AB and W3C team. <br />
*** Step4: report to TPAC or AC meeting.<br />
**** Consider various means of advancing work, including virtual workshops, online interaction, WG formation<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporter: Avneesh Singh<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Scope%20of%20the%20W3C | Scope of the W3C open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goal: To consider what the scope of the W3C should be.<br />
* Description: The web has existed for nearly three decades and the W3C for a little less. Both the web and the W3C have changed over that time and we now want to find out whether we (the W3C membership) have a common understanding of what the scope of the W3C might be.<br />
* Deliverables: Proposed definition of scope of the W3C.<br />
<br />
The first step is to gather information by:<br />
* Looking at documents published to /TR over the past 20 years.<br />
* Looking at existing areas of work (WG and IG).<br />
* Talking with members from different industries, verticals and interests to get a qualitative sense of where we are.<br />
* Looking at what's incubating (WG and CG).<br />
<br />
===Current Work areas in W3C===<br />
==== Web for all ====<br />
;WG deliverables<br />
:Accessibility Guidelines, ARIA, Education and outreach, Web app security, Web Payment Security, Web Authentication<br />
;Review (and resultant deliverables)<br />
:APA, I18n, Privacy, Patents and Standards<br />
<br />
==== Browser Web ====<br />
; W3C<br />
: Testing and Tools, (CSS), Pointer Events, Service Workers, SVG, Fonts, Performance, RTC, WebAssembly, Web Applications (assorted APIs etc), Devices and Sensors<br />
; Whatwg<br />
: HTML, DOM, microdata<br />
<br />
==== Information management ====<br />
<br />
Dataset Exchange, JSON-LD, DID, Verifiable Credentials, spatial data, distributed tracing<br />
<br />
==== Like browsers ====<br />
<br />
:Audio, Automotive, Media, second screen, Timed Text, Publishing, Audio, Web of Things, Immersive Web, Web Payments<br />
;IGs<br />
: Media and entertainment<br />
<br />
==== Other stuff ====<br />
<br />
Web & Networks<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and Chaals Nevile<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Membership | Membership open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
;Areas to explore<br />
: Create an executive meeting place in W3C, to ensure higher levels of corporate commitment.<br />
: Account management of small members: Send an automated email annually to all Members. Encourage feedback and address the feedback through ongoing dialog <br />
: Explore pricing as a means to encourage long-term membership<br />
: Add components to W3C's value which will ensure greater value to Members (e.g. certification)<br />
;Approach<br />
: Create a survey to solicit input from membership - what do they see as the value?<br />
: They should know! They joined for a reason. Let's hear that reason.<br />
: Once we know their reasons we can put together a new package which describes the Member Value.<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Tooling | Tooling open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: Develop a tooling policy for the W3C, and work with the SysTeam on key priorities<br />
* Description: We use a variety of tools both for the development of deliverables (e.g. Github, Bikeshed, ReSpec etc.) and for the operation of the W3C (e.g. Webex, IRC, the bots). A number of groups are experimenting with other tools as well (Slack, Converse, WebRTC and other call-in and conference systems), and we have some volunteer tools (Bikeshed was one once, and the Github-bot comes to mind). We need to work out what principles apply; what tools can groups use, that have suitable accessibility (both for international audiences, and in the traditional sense), transparency, longevity etc. We have some obvious long-standing problems (calendaring is one). We also have a discoverability question: if one is not a member of a WG but wants to investigate something, or help on a topic, can you find where conversations occur, decisions are made, calls happen, etc.?<br />
* Deliverables: A standing [[W3C Tooling Policy]] document, probably supported by guidelines and recommendations<br />
<br />
* Status: We plan to work on at least some aspects of this for Process 2021, in conjunction with work on Registries. There are also notes on the [[Tooling Considerations]] page</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=111326AB/2020 Priorities2020-04-18T08:17:09Z<p>Charles: /* Task 9: Scope of the W3C */ stuff in progress</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
Related issues are all available on the [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Priority%20task | ab-memberonly repository]].<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Legal%20entity | Legal entity open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
* Supporters: Jay Kishigami, Hongru Zhu<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Strategy | Strategy open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== scope ===<br />
'''Goals:'''<br />
* Determine strategic goals.<br />
* Refine the identity and scope of organization.<br />
* Define the values of the organization.<br />
* Make it visible to W3C community and beyond.<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
<br />
The discussion in strategy session in November 2019 AB meeting gave some pointers for moving ahead. The work will start from these pointer, and the high level plan is as follows:<br />
* Connect the dots, considering the inputs given by AB in November 2019 meeting and the objectives defined by W3M.<br />
* Determine the strategic goals, scope and values of the organization, with inputs from stake holders.<br />
* Prioritize the strategic goals.<br />
* Outline the action plan in collaboration with the management.<br />
* Make the strategic goals, scope and values visible to W3C members and beyond.<br />
<br />
February 2020 status:<br />
The inputs were provided by AB in November 2019 meeting and the overview of management objectives was provided by the management in January 2020. The work in progress document is at:<br />
https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/W3C-strategy-development<br />
The first draft of strategic goals are identified, and we are now working on assigning priorities to these strategic goals.<br />
<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Form%20and%20structure | Form and structure open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Explore the model under which W3C operates - namely that Members pay dues, but work that is often done by volunteers (in other standards organizations) is done by the staff<br />
** Examine the assumptions about what work would be done by the staff when W3C started, and compare that to what happens today.<br />
** Examine the total cost of this model against the costs of other models<br />
** Examine the efficacy (quantity, quality) of this approach against other models<br />
** Assess whether things should be done differently when W3C becomes its own legal entity.<br />
<br />
=== Related topic ===<br />
<br />
* In the 25 February AB meeting there was a relationship raised between this project and the project called "Role of the Director" or "Director-free" (DF), i.e. the plans to restructure roles and responsibilities within W3C when Tim steps down as Director. The question arose whether the DF project needed to consider a broader shift in W3C's operating model.<br />
* Most of the AB felt that the DF project should continue with its more modest restructure assumptions, but the discussion made "W3C form and structure" seem more urgent.<br />
* Accordingly, the next step for the "W3C form and structure" project should be to build a diverse team of people from our community to study this issue.<br />
* A good first step would be some announcement to the AC; launching this project; getting participants into this project, and explaining how it relates to DF<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Incubation | Incubation open issues]]<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: Define Incubation, create incubation best practices, broaden review of incubation beyond WICG<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Notes ====<br />
Some of this is documented for WICG in the WICG admin repo: https://github.com/WICG/admin. However, there isn't only one process for incubation - the goal of the pattern of incubation is to do early exploration, and those explorations may explicitly fail. (Chris Wilson and Yoav Weiss talked about incubation as a part of the standards process a bit at Chrome Dev Summit 2019: https://youtu.be/y3EZx_b-7tk?t=781). Note that there's different subtleties depending on how "incubation" is done - for example the way the Immersive Web CG/WG does it is detailed at https://github.com/immersive-web/administrivia/blob/master/transitioning-issues-from-cg-to-wg.md. The CSS WG does their own version internally - IIRC, they used to more carefully mark the instability of their specs at https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work for early-stage specs (the CSS process doc does talk about how the CSS Snapshot doesn't include modules that don't have high stability, but doesn't talk about that in terms of the journey of a feature from idea to standard).<br />
<br />
The transition of an incubation to a "specification" (aka a REC-track "standard") isn't well defined, partly because there's no single path there, either. Some features in incubation go into the HTML or DOM specs, or are subsumed into other specs; many, to be honest, are awaiting broader implementer interest, which would hold them up in standards. Is that success or failure?<br />
<br />
We have begun speaking with members who have expressed particular interest or concern in this topic. One person asked me to consider incubation in this context:<br />
* how is the process (including incubation) supposed to work when Google is moving faster than everyone else? how can W3C accommodate those who can't work at Google's speed?<br />
<br />
See (https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/) definition from 2016.<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Process | Process open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Registries ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Make it possible to maintain a Registry at W3C<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Registries are a type of report that is available in other standards bodies but not at w3c, and w3c participants have expressed the need for. We have high level agreement on what making them work here would entail, but still need to converge on the concrete realization.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Complete, then merge into P2020, a process for publishing and maintaining registries<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
=== Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Finalize the Evereblue/teal<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Finalize all necessary edits to fully bake ever* into process 2020, work with Wendy and PSIG to get an updated Patent Policy that supports it, and all the supporting documentation to ease review and approval by the AC <br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Process 2020 with everblue/teal integrated<br />
* Updated Patent Policy supporting Process 2020<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman, Avneesh Singh and Léonie Watson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Globalization | Globalization open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Horizontal issue'''<br />
* 1. I18n<br />
*2. Diversity and Inclusion(tzviya and Angel)<br />
*3. Translation at TPAC 2020 (Jay and Léonie)<br />
We are preparing the captioning and translation system with Nomi team.<br />
Tentative schedule is:<br />
** phase 1 captioning + CJK translation with quality control for the coming virtual AC mtg<br />
** Phase 2 Holistic translations system for all mtg including WG<br />
I hope all AB support this trial.<br />
<br />
'''Vertical issue'''<br />
*4. Digital Currency--(Jay and ?)<br />
** Blockchain economy, incl. Lebra<br />
<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Role%20of%20the%20Director | Role of the director open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Goals:''' Be ready for when the Founding Director steps down<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
The founding Director will eventually be leaving his role. Many parts of W3C formally depend on him to function. Continue the efforts started in 2019 to Evolve the various governing documents so that W3C can be fully functional in the absence of a Director. There isn't a strict deadline within the time-frame of Process 2021, but it would be good to be ready by then. Even if not fully finalized, the larger part of the work should be completed.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* An integrated set of changes that could be landed into the Process and related documents to fully operate without a Director.<br />
* Some parts of the previous items may optionally be available in individual Pull Requests for possible adoption while the Founding Director is still present.<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Next%20big%20thing | Next big thing open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: To explore the next big technical directions that matter to the community and the long-term development of the Web.<br />
* Description: Forward looking in industry, discussion widely with members to identify and incubate potential topics, such as voice assistance, AI, etc., and move the identified topics forward in standardization.<br />
* Deliverables: Target area list, possible roadmap for incubation, member participation intention list, and present the topics in TPAC 2020.<br />
* Progress updated by Judy Zhu (by Feb 2020):<br />
** Initially collected topics: <br />
*** From Members: WebRTC.Next, V2E (Voice to everything, such as voice API), Video (e.g. to support remote participation), Semantic search engine, knowledge graph, Progressive Hybrid App (hybrid rendering based on Web and Native), etc etc<br />
*** Ref---From Strategy Funnel: MiniApps, Improving Web Advertising; workshops or potential workshops in Web and Machine Learning, Maps, Media Packaging, Voice Interaction. Potential WG from WebGPU CG. <br />
** Over All Plan: <br />
*** Step1: input from Strategy team: Wendy, Judy, and Angel reviewed W3C Strategy Funnel<br />
**** Other possible resources? <br />
*** Step2: input from community: we will design a survey as a tool to invite feedback from Team, Chairs, AB, TAG and AC by the end of March<br />
**** Offer lightning talks/short explainers/video, and other means of info-sharing<br />
*** Step3: info collection report: we will generate a report based on the community feedback by Mid Apr, and discuss the follow up plan with AB and W3C team. <br />
*** Step4: report to TPAC or AC meeting.<br />
**** Consider various means of advancing work, including virtual workshops, online interaction, WG formation<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporter: Avneesh Singh<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Scope%20of%20the%20W3C | Scope of the W3C open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goal: To consider what the scope of the W3C should be.<br />
* Description: The web has existed for nearly three decades and the W3C for a little less. Both the web and the W3C have changed over that time and we now want to find out whether we (the W3C membership) have a common understanding of what the scope of the W3C might be.<br />
* Deliverables: Proposed definition of scope of the W3C.<br />
<br />
The first step is to gather information by:<br />
* Looking at documents published to /TR over the past 20 years.<br />
* Looking at existing areas of work (WG and IG).<br />
* Talking with members from different industries, verticals and interests to get a qualitative sense of where we are.<br />
* Looking at what's incubating (WG and CG).<br />
<br />
===Current Work areas in W3C===<br />
==== Web for all ====<br />
;WG deliverables<br />
:Accessibility Guidelines, ARIA, Education and outreach, Web app security, Web Payment Security, Web Authentication<br />
;Review (and resultant deliverables)<br />
:APA, I18n, Privacy, Patents and Standards<br />
<br />
==== Browser Web ====<br />
; W3C<br />
: Testing and Tools, (CSS), Pointer Events, Service Workers, SVG, Fonts, Performance, RTC, WebAssembly, Web Applications (assorted APIs etc), Devices and Sensors<br />
; Whatwg<br />
: HTML, DOM, microdata<br />
<br />
==== Information management ====<br />
<br />
Dataset Exchange, JSON-LD, DID, Verifiable Credentials, spatial data, distributed tracing<br />
<br />
==== More browsers ====<br />
<br />
:Audio, Automotive, Media, second screen, Timed Text, Publishing, Audio, Web of Things, Immersive Web, Web Payments<br />
;IGs<br />
: Media and entertainment<br />
<br />
<br />
ExpandWeb & Networks<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and Chaals Nevile<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Membership | Membership open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
;Areas to explore<br />
: Create an executive meeting place in W3C, to ensure higher levels of corporate commitment.<br />
: Account management of small members: Send an automated email annually to all Members. Encourage feedback and address the feedback through ongoing dialog <br />
: Explore pricing as a means to encourage long-term membership<br />
: Add components to W3C's value which will ensure greater value to Members (e.g. certification)<br />
;Approach<br />
: Create a survey to solicit input from membership - what do they see as the value?<br />
: They should know! They joined for a reason. Let's hear that reason.<br />
: Once we know their reasons we can put together a new package which describes the Member Value.<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Tooling | Tooling open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: Develop a tooling policy for the W3C, and work with the SysTeam on key priorities<br />
* Description: We use a variety of tools both for the development of deliverables (e.g. Github, Bikeshed, ReSpec etc.) and for the operation of the W3C (e.g. Webex, IRC, the bots). A number of groups are experimenting with other tools as well (Slack, Converse, WebRTC and other call-in and conference systems), and we have some volunteer tools (Bikeshed was one once, and the Github-bot comes to mind). We need to work out what principles apply; what tools can groups use, that have suitable accessibility (both for international audiences, and in the traditional sense), transparency, longevity etc. We have some obvious long-standing problems (calendaring is one). We also have a discoverability question: if one is not a member of a WG but wants to investigate something, or help on a topic, can you find where conversations occur, decisions are made, calls happen, etc.?<br />
* Deliverables: A standing [[W3C Tooling Policy]] document, probably supported by guidelines and recommendations<br />
<br />
* Status: We plan to work on at least some aspects of this for Process 2021, in conjunction with work on Registries. There are also notes on the [[Tooling Considerations]] page</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=111325AB/2020 Priorities2020-04-18T07:50:05Z<p>Charles: /* Task 10: W3C member value */</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
Related issues are all available on the [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Priority%20task | ab-memberonly repository]].<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Legal%20entity | Legal entity open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
* Supporters: Jay Kishigami, Hongru Zhu<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Strategy | Strategy open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== scope ===<br />
'''Goals:'''<br />
* Determine strategic goals.<br />
* Refine the identity and scope of organization.<br />
* Define the values of the organization.<br />
* Make it visible to W3C community and beyond.<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
<br />
The discussion in strategy session in November 2019 AB meeting gave some pointers for moving ahead. The work will start from these pointer, and the high level plan is as follows:<br />
* Connect the dots, considering the inputs given by AB in November 2019 meeting and the objectives defined by W3M.<br />
* Determine the strategic goals, scope and values of the organization, with inputs from stake holders.<br />
* Prioritize the strategic goals.<br />
* Outline the action plan in collaboration with the management.<br />
* Make the strategic goals, scope and values visible to W3C members and beyond.<br />
<br />
February 2020 status:<br />
The inputs were provided by AB in November 2019 meeting and the overview of management objectives was provided by the management in January 2020. The work in progress document is at:<br />
https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/W3C-strategy-development<br />
The first draft of strategic goals are identified, and we are now working on assigning priorities to these strategic goals.<br />
<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Form%20and%20structure | Form and structure open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Explore the model under which W3C operates - namely that Members pay dues, but work that is often done by volunteers (in other standards organizations) is done by the staff<br />
** Examine the assumptions about what work would be done by the staff when W3C started, and compare that to what happens today.<br />
** Examine the total cost of this model against the costs of other models<br />
** Examine the efficacy (quantity, quality) of this approach against other models<br />
** Assess whether things should be done differently when W3C becomes its own legal entity.<br />
<br />
=== Related topic ===<br />
<br />
* In the 25 February AB meeting there was a relationship raised between this project and the project called "Role of the Director" or "Director-free" (DF), i.e. the plans to restructure roles and responsibilities within W3C when Tim steps down as Director. The question arose whether the DF project needed to consider a broader shift in W3C's operating model.<br />
* Most of the AB felt that the DF project should continue with its more modest restructure assumptions, but the discussion made "W3C form and structure" seem more urgent.<br />
* Accordingly, the next step for the "W3C form and structure" project should be to build a diverse team of people from our community to study this issue.<br />
* A good first step would be some announcement to the AC; launching this project; getting participants into this project, and explaining how it relates to DF<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Incubation | Incubation open issues]]<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: Define Incubation, create incubation best practices, broaden review of incubation beyond WICG<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Notes ====<br />
Some of this is documented for WICG in the WICG admin repo: https://github.com/WICG/admin. However, there isn't only one process for incubation - the goal of the pattern of incubation is to do early exploration, and those explorations may explicitly fail. (Chris Wilson and Yoav Weiss talked about incubation as a part of the standards process a bit at Chrome Dev Summit 2019: https://youtu.be/y3EZx_b-7tk?t=781). Note that there's different subtleties depending on how "incubation" is done - for example the way the Immersive Web CG/WG does it is detailed at https://github.com/immersive-web/administrivia/blob/master/transitioning-issues-from-cg-to-wg.md. The CSS WG does their own version internally - IIRC, they used to more carefully mark the instability of their specs at https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work for early-stage specs (the CSS process doc does talk about how the CSS Snapshot doesn't include modules that don't have high stability, but doesn't talk about that in terms of the journey of a feature from idea to standard).<br />
<br />
The transition of an incubation to a "specification" (aka a REC-track "standard") isn't well defined, partly because there's no single path there, either. Some features in incubation go into the HTML or DOM specs, or are subsumed into other specs; many, to be honest, are awaiting broader implementer interest, which would hold them up in standards. Is that success or failure?<br />
<br />
We have begun speaking with members who have expressed particular interest or concern in this topic. One person asked me to consider incubation in this context:<br />
* how is the process (including incubation) supposed to work when Google is moving faster than everyone else? how can W3C accommodate those who can't work at Google's speed?<br />
<br />
See (https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/) definition from 2016.<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Process | Process open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Registries ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Make it possible to maintain a Registry at W3C<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Registries are a type of report that is available in other standards bodies but not at w3c, and w3c participants have expressed the need for. We have high level agreement on what making them work here would entail, but still need to converge on the concrete realization.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Complete, then merge into P2020, a process for publishing and maintaining registries<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
=== Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Finalize the Evereblue/teal<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Finalize all necessary edits to fully bake ever* into process 2020, work with Wendy and PSIG to get an updated Patent Policy that supports it, and all the supporting documentation to ease review and approval by the AC <br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Process 2020 with everblue/teal integrated<br />
* Updated Patent Policy supporting Process 2020<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman, Avneesh Singh and Léonie Watson<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Globalization | Globalization open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Horizontal issue'''<br />
* 1. I18n<br />
*2. Diversity and Inclusion(tzviya and Angel)<br />
*3. Translation at TPAC 2020 (Jay and Léonie)<br />
We are preparing the captioning and translation system with Nomi team.<br />
Tentative schedule is:<br />
** phase 1 captioning + CJK translation with quality control for the coming virtual AC mtg<br />
** Phase 2 Holistic translations system for all mtg including WG<br />
I hope all AB support this trial.<br />
<br />
'''Vertical issue'''<br />
*4. Digital Currency--(Jay and ?)<br />
** Blockchain economy, incl. Lebra<br />
<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Role%20of%20the%20Director | Role of the director open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
'''Goals:''' Be ready for when the Founding Director steps down<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
The founding Director will eventually be leaving his role. Many parts of W3C formally depend on him to function. Continue the efforts started in 2019 to Evolve the various governing documents so that W3C can be fully functional in the absence of a Director. There isn't a strict deadline within the time-frame of Process 2021, but it would be good to be ready by then. Even if not fully finalized, the larger part of the work should be completed.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* An integrated set of changes that could be landed into the Process and related documents to fully operate without a Director.<br />
* Some parts of the previous items may optionally be available in individual Pull Requests for possible adoption while the Founding Director is still present.<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Next%20big%20thing | Next big thing open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: To explore the next big technical directions that matter to the community and the long-term development of the Web.<br />
* Description: Forward looking in industry, discussion widely with members to identify and incubate potential topics, such as voice assistance, AI, etc., and move the identified topics forward in standardization.<br />
* Deliverables: Target area list, possible roadmap for incubation, member participation intention list, and present the topics in TPAC 2020.<br />
* Progress updated by Judy Zhu (by Feb 2020):<br />
** Initially collected topics: <br />
*** From Members: WebRTC.Next, V2E (Voice to everything, such as voice API), Video (e.g. to support remote participation), Semantic search engine, knowledge graph, Progressive Hybrid App (hybrid rendering based on Web and Native), etc etc<br />
*** Ref---From Strategy Funnel: MiniApps, Improving Web Advertising; workshops or potential workshops in Web and Machine Learning, Maps, Media Packaging, Voice Interaction. Potential WG from WebGPU CG. <br />
** Over All Plan: <br />
*** Step1: input from Strategy team: Wendy, Judy, and Angel reviewed W3C Strategy Funnel<br />
**** Other possible resources? <br />
*** Step2: input from community: we will design a survey as a tool to invite feedback from Team, Chairs, AB, TAG and AC by the end of March<br />
**** Offer lightning talks/short explainers/video, and other means of info-sharing<br />
*** Step3: info collection report: we will generate a report based on the community feedback by Mid Apr, and discuss the follow up plan with AB and W3C team. <br />
*** Step4: report to TPAC or AC meeting.<br />
**** Consider various means of advancing work, including virtual workshops, online interaction, WG formation<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporter: Avneesh Singh<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Scope%20of%20the%20W3C | Scope of the W3C open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goal: To consider what the scope of the W3C should be.<br />
* Description: The web has existed for nearly three decades and the W3C for a little less. Both the web and the W3C have changed over that time and we now want to find out whether we (the W3C membership) have a common understanding of what the scope of the W3C might be.<br />
* Deliverables: Proposed definition of scope of the W3C.<br />
<br />
The first step is to gather information by:<br />
* Looking at documents published to /TR over the past 20 years.<br />
* Looking at existing areas of work (WG and IG).<br />
* Talking with members from different industries, verticals and interests to get a qualitative sense of where we are.<br />
* Looking at what's incubating (WG and CG).<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and Chaals Nevile<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Membership | Membership open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
;Areas to explore<br />
: Create an executive meeting place in W3C, to ensure higher levels of corporate commitment.<br />
: Account management of small members: Send an automated email annually to all Members. Encourage feedback and address the feedback through ongoing dialog <br />
: Explore pricing as a means to encourage long-term membership<br />
: Add components to W3C's value which will ensure greater value to Members (e.g. certification)<br />
;Approach<br />
: Create a survey to solicit input from membership - what do they see as the value?<br />
: They should know! They joined for a reason. Let's hear that reason.<br />
: Once we know their reasons we can put together a new package which describes the Member Value.<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
* [[https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/labels/Tooling | Tooling open issues]]<br />
<br />
=== Scope ===<br />
* Goals: Develop a tooling policy for the W3C, and work with the SysTeam on key priorities<br />
* Description: We use a variety of tools both for the development of deliverables (e.g. Github, Bikeshed, ReSpec etc.) and for the operation of the W3C (e.g. Webex, IRC, the bots). A number of groups are experimenting with other tools as well (Slack, Converse, WebRTC and other call-in and conference systems), and we have some volunteer tools (Bikeshed was one once, and the Github-bot comes to mind). We need to work out what principles apply; what tools can groups use, that have suitable accessibility (both for international audiences, and in the traditional sense), transparency, longevity etc. We have some obvious long-standing problems (calendaring is one). We also have a discoverability question: if one is not a member of a WG but wants to investigate something, or help on a topic, can you find where conversations occur, decisions are made, calls happen, etc.?<br />
* Deliverables: A standing [[W3C Tooling Policy]] document, probably supported by guidelines and recommendations<br />
<br />
* Status: We plan to work on at least some aspects of this for Process 2021, in conjunction with work on Registries. There are also notes on the [[Tooling Considerations]] page</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=111014AB/2020 Priorities2020-01-27T18:18:12Z<p>Charles: /* task 9: Scope */</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.1: Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.1: scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.2: Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.2:scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
* Supporters: Jay Kishigami, Hongru Zhu<br />
<br />
=== Task 2: scope ===<br />
'''Goals:'''<br />
* Determine strategic goals.<br />
* Refine the identity and scope of organization.<br />
* Define the values of the organization.<br />
* Make it visible to W3C community and beyond.<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
<br />
The discussion in strategy session in November 2019 AB meeting gave some pointers for moving ahead. The work will start from these pointer, and the high level plan is as follows:<br />
* Connect the dots, considering the inputs given by AB in November 2019 meeting and the objectives defined by W3M.<br />
* Determine the strategic goals, scope and values of the organization, with inputs from stake holders.<br />
* Prioritize the strategic goals.<br />
* Outline the action plan in collaboration with the management.<br />
* Make the strategic goals, scope and values visible to W3C members and beyond.<br />
<br />
<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
<br />
* Explore the model under which W3C operates - namely that Members pay dues, but work that is often done by volunteers (in other standards organizations) is done by the staff<br />
** Examine the assumptions about what work would be done by the staff when W3C started, and compare that to what happens today.<br />
** Examine the total cost of this model against the costs of other models<br />
** Examine the efficacy (quantity, quality) of this approach against other models<br />
** Assess whether things should be done differently when W3C becomes its own legal entity.<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.1: Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== task 4.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: Define Incubation, create incubation best practices, broaden review of incubation beyond WICG<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.2: Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 4.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Notes ====<br />
Some of this is documented for WICG in the WICG admin repo: https://github.com/WICG/admin. However, there isn't only one process for incubation - the goal of the pattern of incubation is to do early exploration, and those explorations may explicitly fail. (Chris Wilson and Yoav Weiss talked about incubation as a part of the standards process a bit at Chrome Dev Summit 2019: https://youtu.be/y3EZx_b-7tk?t=781). Note that there's different subtleties depending on how "incubation" is done - for example the way the Immersive Web CG/WG does it is detailed at https://github.com/immersive-web/administrivia/blob/master/transitioning-issues-from-cg-to-wg.md. The CSS WG does their own version internally - IIRC, they used to more carefully mark the instability of their specs at https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work for early-stage specs (the CSS process doc does talk about how the CSS Snapshot doesn't include modules that don't have high stability, but doesn't talk about that in terms of the journey of a feature from idea to standard).<br />
<br />
The transition of an incubation to a "specification" (aka a REC-track "standard") isn't well defined, partly because there's no single path there, either. Some features in incubation go into the HTML or DOM specs, or are subsumed into other specs; many, to be honest, are awaiting broader implementer interest, which would hold them up in standards. Is that success or failure?<br />
<br />
We have begun speaking with members who have expressed particular interest or concern in this topic. One person asked me to consider incubation in this context:<br />
* how is the process (including incubation) supposed to work when Google is moving faster than everyone else? how can W3C accommodate those who can't work at Google's speed?<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.1: Registries ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.1: Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Make it possible to maintain a Registry at W3C<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Registries are a type of report that is avaiable in other standards bodies but not at w3c, and w3c participants have expressed the need for. We have high level agreement on what making them work here would entail, but still need to converge on the concrete realization.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Complete, then merge into P2020, a process for publishing and maintaining registries<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.2: Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.2: Scope ====<br />
'''Goals:''' Finalize the Evereblue/teal<br />
<br />
'''Description:''' Finalize all necessary edits to fully bake ever* into process 2020, work with Wendy and PSIG to get an updated Patent Policy that supports it, and all the supporting documentation to ease review and approval by the AC <br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* Process 2020 with everblue/teal integrated<br />
* Updated Patent Policy supporting Process 2020<br />
* Diffs to facilitate review<br />
* Explainers and FAQs<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman and Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 6: Scope ===<br />
'''Holizontal issue'''<br />
* 1. I18n<br />
*2. Diversity and Inclusion(tzviya and Angel)<br />
*3. Translation at TPAC 2020 (Jay and Leonie?)<br />
'''Vertical issue'''<br />
*4. Digital Currency--(Jay and ?)<br />
** Blockchain economy, incl. Lebra<br />
<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
<br />
=== Task 7: Scope ===<br />
'''Goals:''' Be ready for when the Founding Director steps down<br />
<br />
'''Description:'''<br />
The founding Director will eventually be leaving his role. Many parts of W3C formally depend on him to function. Continue the efforts started in 2019 to Evolve the various governing documents so that W3C can be fully functional in the absence of a Director. There isn't a strict deadline within the time-frame of Process 2021, but it would be good to be ready by then. Even if not fully finalized, the larger part of the work should be completed.<br />
<br />
'''Deliverables:'''<br />
* An integrated set of changes that could be landed into the Process and related documents to fully operate without a Director.<br />
* Some parts of the previous items may optionally be available in individual Pull Requests for possible adoption while the Founding Director is still present.<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
<br />
=== Task 8: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: To explore the next big technical directions that matter to the community and the long-term development of the Web.<br />
* Description: Forward looking in industry, discussion widely with members to identify and incubate potential topics, such as voice assistance, AI, etc., and move the identified topics forward in standardization.<br />
* Deliverables: Target area list, possible roadmap for incubation, member participation intention list, and present the topics in TPAC 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
Supporter: Avneesh Singh<br />
=== task 9: Scope ===<br />
* Goal: To consider what the scope of the W3C should be.<br />
* Description: The web has existed for nearly three decades and the W3C for a little less. Both the web and the W3C have changed over that time and we now want to find out whether we (the W3C membership) have a common understanding of what the web might look like in five or ten years time, and what that means for the W3C.<br />
* Deliverables: Proposed definition of scope of the W3C.<br />
<br />
What to **do**:<br />
<br />
* look at what work we are doing right now<br />
* look at what CGs are incubating<br />
* talk to people about what they actually think, as a way to get a qualitative sense<br />
* figure out how to put numbers behind it<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and Chaals Nevile<br />
<br />
<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
;Areas to explore<br />
: Create an executive meeting place in W3C, to ensure higher levels of corporate commitment.<br />
: Account management of small members: Send an automated emailannually to all Members. Encourage feedback and address the feedback through ongoing dialog <br />
: Explore pricing as a means to encourage long-term membership<br />
: Add components to W3C's value which will ensure greater value to Members (e.g. certification)<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
=== Task 11: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: Develop a tooling policy for the W3C, and work with the SysTeam on key priorities<br />
* Description: We use a variety of tools both for the development of deliverables (e.g. Github, Bikeshed, ReSpec etc.) and for the operation of the W3C (e.g. Webex, IRC, the bots). A number of groups are experimenting with other tools as well (Slack, Converse, WebRTC and other call-in and conference systems), and we have some volunteer tools (Bikeshed was one once, and the Github-bot comes to mind). We need to work out what principles apply; what tools can groups use, that have suitable accessibility (both for international audiences, and in the traditional sense), transparency, longevity etc. We have some obvious long-standing problems (calendaring is one). We also have a discoverability question: if one is not a member of a WG but wants to investigate something, or help on a topic, can you find where conversations occur, decisions are made, calls happen, etc.?<br />
* Deliverables: A standing policy document, probably supported by guidelines and recommendations<br />
<br />
<br />
* Status: we are developing a [[Tooling Considerations]] page</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness&diff=110975AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness2020-01-15T05:48:43Z<p>Charles: move commentary to the end</p>
<hr />
<div>This is one of the [[AB/2019_Priorities#Team_contact_effectiveness_and_chair_satisfaction_with_support.|AB 2019 priorities]]. The goal of this exercise is to assess how well we match the working requirements of groups in assigning chairs and team contacts.<br />
<br />
The humans who collect and collate the information need to be identified. There should be enough to ensure responders can pick one they trust, few enough to provide further anonymisation of the data collected.<br />
<br />
== Where we are / next steps ==<br />
<br />
This is a proposed work item. If the AB wants to proceed given this outline, the next steps would be to identify the people who collect the raw data. I think there should be one or two team contacts, one or two chairs, and two or three people who are neither, and at least one person to collate the overall results - chaals will volunteer but maybe there is someone better to do that.<br />
<br />
== Proposed methodology ==<br />
<br />
This is ''''explicitly not'''' a performance assessment of individual chairs or team contacts, so the design is to ensure it cannot be effectively used as one, in order to minimise the likelihood of the information provided being biased towards such use.<br />
<br />
The questions will be provided by email, with answers to be returned in email to someone chosen by the responder from the list of volunteer 'aggregators', who will provide anonymisation<br />
<br />
The aggregators, people who collect raw data will be asked to keep it, securely and in confidence, until 3 months after the final results are produced, and then to delete it. This means there is a path to asking further questions for clarification, while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for respondents.<br />
<br />
The anonymised results will be collated to provide an overview of the answers which will be made available to team and members.<br />
<br />
Responses will be collated by a person who may be asked to provide further information and will individually contact you in confidence. You are free to choose who in the list you want to be your "contact". <br />
<br />
<br />
[JJ input] CEPC is getting greater attention in our community and the roles of Team Contact and Chairs are not always clear to them. Do we need a set of questions about that?<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
<br />
It should take more than 10 minutes to answer the question for a given group. We are looking for thoughtful answers. If you are not sure of an answer please say so - the assumption is that otherwise you're pretty certain. <br />
<br />
=== For all ===<br />
q1. Which tasks required to run the Group effectively should be automated better?<br />
<br />
Please answer all the remaining questions (including those on horizontal review) separately for each group. No need to identify the groups - just give them a number.<br />
<br />
q2. Does the group understand and efficiently follow the Process?<br />
<br />
q3. Is the team contact '''allocation''' about right, more than needed, or insufficient?<br />
<br />
[JJ input] For those that do not answer "about right", I would ask a follow-up to characterize what more the TC should be doing or to characterize what tasks the TC should stop doing.<br />
-[CMN] several of the questions for chairs/team contacts go into this further.<br />
<br />
"Horizontal review":<br />
For the remaining questions please answer with regard to each of<br />
<br />
* API design and developer ergonomics (TAG)<br />
* Accessibility (APA WG)<br />
* Internationalisation (i18n)<br />
* Privacy (PING)<br />
* Security<br />
<br />
q4. Does the group have internal champions (you or participants) for each horizontal aspect?<br />
<br />
q5. Does the group adequately address issues in each area, and how do you know?<br />
<br />
q6. Do the groups responsible for Horizontal review provide adequate support?<br />
<br />
q7. Are there improvements in tooling or procedures that you want for horizontal review?<br />
<br />
q8. Does input from Horizontal review come in sufficiently early in the spec development process to address issues adequately?<br />
<br />
<br />
=== For Team contacts: ===<br />
<br />
qT9. For how many groups are you a team contact?<br />
<br />
qT10. Do you spend about the allocated time, or more, or much more, or less or much less?<br />
<br />
qT11. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qT12. Do you allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qT13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qT14. What tasks do the chairs / participants do?<br />
<br />
qT15. What tasks should the chairs/participants do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qT16. What tasks are being done manually that should be automated?<br />
<br />
=== For Chairs ===<br />
<br />
qC9. Do your team contact(s) effectively allocate the time specified in the charter?<br />
<br />
qC10. Do you and other group participants provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC11. Do your team contacts allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qC12. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qC14. What tasks do the team contacts do?<br />
<br />
qC15. What tasks should the team contacts do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qC16. What benefit does the Team Contact(s) provide to the group? Please reply with respect to the time actually available as well as the time formally allocated<br />
<br />
qC17. What would be the impact of not having the team contact<br />
<br />
qT18. What tasks are being done manually that should be automated?<br />
<br />
==<br />
<br />
== Input received ==<br />
<br />
=== on methodology ===<br />
* [JJ input] It is unclear to me whether this is proposed to be a WBS survey (or similar) or collection of the raw data via interview. I could go either way, but would favor the first. In that case, the questions need to be more crisp and mostly mutiple choice in nature. If it is intended that the survey be via interview, then 10 minutes is a gross underestimate of how long such conversations will take. In a discussion with 20 "leading" questions, I would expect it would take more like an hour.<br />
It is meant to be done in email - see methodology<br />
* [JJ input] I would recommend a team of people collating the overall results to prevent any biases. I would be pleased to serve on such a committee.<br />
you would be a poor choice for collating results given your role as CEO and the explicit intention to avoid this data being used in any personal performance assessment<br />
** [JJ] Fair point.<br />
<br />
[From Léonie Watson by email: don't ask about other groups people participate in. Done]<br />
<br />
== on general questions ==<br />
<br />
[From Dave Singer by email: ask about what tasks should be automated. Done]<br />
<br />
q. Does the group adequately address HR review issues that are raised<br />
CMN: This question appears to be the same as q8<br />
<br />
[additional JJ input] Do we need to separately ask HR groups (e.g. i18N, APA, PING) what they think of the HR process?<br />
CMN: No, that is a separate priority project being led by Léonie (which is ahead of this one)<br />
<br />
<br />
== on questions for chairs<br />
[NR] Questions and options are given below:<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the amount of work time your Team Contact has to work on assisting with your group? (The group requires a lot more time, The group requires some more time, About right, The group requires less time, The group requires a lot less time)<br />
[cmn] Adopted as qC12 (should have been there already)<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the benefit of the work your group receives from your Team Contact, in the time they have available? (Extremely beneficial, Beneficial, Average, Not beneficial, Causes a disadvantage to the group)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC16<br />
<br />
q. If your group did not have a Team Contact, how would this affect your group? (The group would not complete the work and close, The group would be at a huge loss but would continue, The group will run the same, The group will benefit)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC17<br />
<br />
q. What level of technical assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Essential guidance, Provides some guidance, Same as a group participant, Provides no guidance, Provides incorrect or illogical guidance)<br />
<br />
q. What level of managerial (meeting booking. webex sorting, Process advancement) assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Completes most of the managerial work, Completes a moderate amount of the managerial work, Completes the necessary managerial work only, Completes no managerial work, Is more unhelpful than helpful)<br />
[cmn]These two questions are covered by C14/C15 and corresponding questions about chairs for team contacts.<br />
[/NR]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness&diff=110974AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness2020-01-15T05:44:56Z<p>Charles: /* For Chairs */ Automation question from Dave Singer</p>
<hr />
<div>This is one of the [[AB/2019_Priorities#Team_contact_effectiveness_and_chair_satisfaction_with_support.|AB 2019 priorities]]. The goal of this exercise is to assess how well we match the working requirements of groups in assigning chairs and team contacts.<br />
<br />
The humans who collect and collate the information need to be identified. There should be enough to ensure responders can pick one they trust, few enough to provide further anonymisation of the data collected.<br />
<br />
== Where we are / next steps ==<br />
<br />
This is a proposed work item. If the AB wants to proceed given this outline, the next steps would be to identify the people who collect the raw data. I think there should be one or two team contacts, one or two chairs, and two or three people who are neither, and at least one person to collate the overall results - chaals will volunteer but maybe there is someone better to do that.<br />
* [JJ input] It is unclear to me whether this is proposed to be a WBS survey (or similar) or collection of the raw data via interview. I could go either way, but would favor the first. In that case, the questions need to be more crisp and mostly mutiple choice in nature. If it is intended that the survey be via interview, then 10 minutes is a gross underestimate of how long such conversations will take. In a discussion with 20 "leading" questions, I would expect it would take more like an hour.<br />
It is meant to be done in email - see methodology<br />
<br />
* [JJ input] I would recommend a team of people collating the overall results to prevent any biases. I would be pleased to serve on such a committee.<br />
you would be a poor choice for collating results given your role as CEO and the explicit intention to avoid this data being used in any personal performance assessment<br />
** [JJ] Fair point.<br />
<br />
== Proposed methodology ==<br />
<br />
This is ''''explicitly not'''' a performance assessment of individual chairs or team contacts, so the design is to ensure it cannot be effectively used as one, in order to minimise the likelihood of the information provided being biased towards such use.<br />
<br />
The questions will be provided by email, with answers to be returned in email to someone chosen by the responder from the list of volunteer 'aggregators', who will provide anonymisation<br />
<br />
The aggregators, people who collect raw data will be asked to keep it, securely and in confidence, until 3 months after the final results are produced, and then to delete it. This means there is a path to asking further questions for clarification, while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for respondents.<br />
<br />
The anonymised results will be collated to provide an overview of the answers which will be made available to team and members.<br />
<br />
Responses will be collated by a person who may be asked to provide further information and will individually contact you in confidence. You are free to choose who in the list you want to be your "contact". <br />
<br />
<br />
[JJ input] CEPC is getting greater attention in our community and the roles of Team Contact and Chairs are not always clear to them. Do we need a set of questions about that?<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
<br />
It should take more than 10 minutes to answer the question for a given group. We are looking for thoughtful answers. If you are not sure of an answer please say so - the assumption is that otherwise you're pretty certain. <br />
<br />
=== For all ===<br />
q1. Which tasks required to run the Group effectively should be automated better?<br />
<br />
Please answer all the remaining questions (including those on horizontal review) separately for each group. No need to identify the groups - just give them a number.<br />
<br />
q2. Does the group understand and efficiently follow the Process?<br />
<br />
q3. Is the team contact '''allocation''' about right, more than needed, or insufficient?<br />
<br />
[JJ input] For those that do not answer "about right", I would ask a follow-up to characterize what more the TC should be doing or to characterize what tasks the TC should stop doing.<br />
-[CMN] several of the questions for chairs/team contacts go into this further.<br />
<br />
"Horizontal review":<br />
For the remaining questions please answer with regard to each of<br />
<br />
* API design and developer ergonomics (TAG)<br />
* Accessibility (APA WG)<br />
* Internationalisation (i18n)<br />
* Privacy (PING)<br />
* Security<br />
<br />
q4. Does the group have internal champions (you or participants) for each horizontal aspect?<br />
<br />
q5. Does the group adequately address issues in each area, and how do you know?<br />
<br />
q6. Do the groups responsible for Horizontal review provide adequate support?<br />
<br />
q7. Are there improvements in tooling or procedures that you want for horizontal review?<br />
<br />
q8. Does input from Horizontal review come in sufficiently early in the spec development process to address issues adequately?<br />
<br />
q. Does the group adequately address HR review issues that are raised<br />
This question appears to be the same as q8<br />
<br />
[additional JJ input] Do we need to separately ask HR groups (e.g. i18N, APA, PING) what they think of the HR process?<br />
No, that is a separate priority project being led by Léonie (which is ahead of this one)<br />
<br />
=== For Team contacts: ===<br />
<br />
qT9. For how many groups are you a team contact?<br />
<br />
qT10. Do you spend about the allocated time, or more, or much more, or less or much less?<br />
<br />
qT11. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qT12. Do you allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qT13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qT14. What tasks do the chairs / participants do?<br />
<br />
qT15. What tasks should the chairs/participants do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qT16. What tasks are being done manually that should be automated?<br />
<br />
=== For Chairs ===<br />
<br />
qC9. Do your team contact(s) effectively allocate the time specified in the charter?<br />
<br />
qC10. Do you and other group participants provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC11. Do your team contacts allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qC12. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qC14. What tasks do the team contacts do?<br />
<br />
qC15. What tasks should the team contacts do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qC16. What benefit does the Team Contact(s) provide to the group? Please reply with respect to the time actually available as well as the time formally allocated<br />
<br />
qC17. What would be the impact of not having the team contact<br />
<br />
qT18. What tasks are being done manually that should be automated?<br />
<br />
[NR] Questions and options are given below:<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the amount of work time your Team Contact has to work on assisting with your group? (The group requires a lot more time, The group requires some more time, About right, The group requires less time, The group requires a lot less time)<br />
[cmn] Adopted as qC12 (should have been there already)<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the benefit of the work your group receives from your Team Contact, in the time they have available? (Extremely beneficial, Beneficial, Average, Not beneficial, Causes a disadvantage to the group)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC16<br />
<br />
q. If your group did not have a Team Contact, how would this affect your group? (The group would not complete the work and close, The group would be at a huge loss but would continue, The group will run the same, The group will benefit)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC17<br />
<br />
q. What level of technical assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Essential guidance, Provides some guidance, Same as a group participant, Provides no guidance, Provides incorrect or illogical guidance)<br />
<br />
q. What level of managerial (meeting booking. webex sorting, Process advancement) assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Completes most of the managerial work, Completes a moderate amount of the managerial work, Completes the necessary managerial work only, Completes no managerial work, Is more unhelpful than helpful)<br />
[cmn]These two questions are covered by C14/C15 and corresponding questions about chairs for team contacts.<br />
[/NR]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness&diff=110973AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness2020-01-15T05:43:51Z<p>Charles: /* For Team contacts: */ Automation question from DaveSinger</p>
<hr />
<div>This is one of the [[AB/2019_Priorities#Team_contact_effectiveness_and_chair_satisfaction_with_support.|AB 2019 priorities]]. The goal of this exercise is to assess how well we match the working requirements of groups in assigning chairs and team contacts.<br />
<br />
The humans who collect and collate the information need to be identified. There should be enough to ensure responders can pick one they trust, few enough to provide further anonymisation of the data collected.<br />
<br />
== Where we are / next steps ==<br />
<br />
This is a proposed work item. If the AB wants to proceed given this outline, the next steps would be to identify the people who collect the raw data. I think there should be one or two team contacts, one or two chairs, and two or three people who are neither, and at least one person to collate the overall results - chaals will volunteer but maybe there is someone better to do that.<br />
* [JJ input] It is unclear to me whether this is proposed to be a WBS survey (or similar) or collection of the raw data via interview. I could go either way, but would favor the first. In that case, the questions need to be more crisp and mostly mutiple choice in nature. If it is intended that the survey be via interview, then 10 minutes is a gross underestimate of how long such conversations will take. In a discussion with 20 "leading" questions, I would expect it would take more like an hour.<br />
It is meant to be done in email - see methodology<br />
<br />
* [JJ input] I would recommend a team of people collating the overall results to prevent any biases. I would be pleased to serve on such a committee.<br />
you would be a poor choice for collating results given your role as CEO and the explicit intention to avoid this data being used in any personal performance assessment<br />
** [JJ] Fair point.<br />
<br />
== Proposed methodology ==<br />
<br />
This is ''''explicitly not'''' a performance assessment of individual chairs or team contacts, so the design is to ensure it cannot be effectively used as one, in order to minimise the likelihood of the information provided being biased towards such use.<br />
<br />
The questions will be provided by email, with answers to be returned in email to someone chosen by the responder from the list of volunteer 'aggregators', who will provide anonymisation<br />
<br />
The aggregators, people who collect raw data will be asked to keep it, securely and in confidence, until 3 months after the final results are produced, and then to delete it. This means there is a path to asking further questions for clarification, while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for respondents.<br />
<br />
The anonymised results will be collated to provide an overview of the answers which will be made available to team and members.<br />
<br />
Responses will be collated by a person who may be asked to provide further information and will individually contact you in confidence. You are free to choose who in the list you want to be your "contact". <br />
<br />
<br />
[JJ input] CEPC is getting greater attention in our community and the roles of Team Contact and Chairs are not always clear to them. Do we need a set of questions about that?<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
<br />
It should take more than 10 minutes to answer the question for a given group. We are looking for thoughtful answers. If you are not sure of an answer please say so - the assumption is that otherwise you're pretty certain. <br />
<br />
=== For all ===<br />
q1. Which tasks required to run the Group effectively should be automated better?<br />
<br />
Please answer all the remaining questions (including those on horizontal review) separately for each group. No need to identify the groups - just give them a number.<br />
<br />
q2. Does the group understand and efficiently follow the Process?<br />
<br />
q3. Is the team contact '''allocation''' about right, more than needed, or insufficient?<br />
<br />
[JJ input] For those that do not answer "about right", I would ask a follow-up to characterize what more the TC should be doing or to characterize what tasks the TC should stop doing.<br />
-[CMN] several of the questions for chairs/team contacts go into this further.<br />
<br />
"Horizontal review":<br />
For the remaining questions please answer with regard to each of<br />
<br />
* API design and developer ergonomics (TAG)<br />
* Accessibility (APA WG)<br />
* Internationalisation (i18n)<br />
* Privacy (PING)<br />
* Security<br />
<br />
q4. Does the group have internal champions (you or participants) for each horizontal aspect?<br />
<br />
q5. Does the group adequately address issues in each area, and how do you know?<br />
<br />
q6. Do the groups responsible for Horizontal review provide adequate support?<br />
<br />
q7. Are there improvements in tooling or procedures that you want for horizontal review?<br />
<br />
q8. Does input from Horizontal review come in sufficiently early in the spec development process to address issues adequately?<br />
<br />
q. Does the group adequately address HR review issues that are raised<br />
This question appears to be the same as q8<br />
<br />
[additional JJ input] Do we need to separately ask HR groups (e.g. i18N, APA, PING) what they think of the HR process?<br />
No, that is a separate priority project being led by Léonie (which is ahead of this one)<br />
<br />
=== For Team contacts: ===<br />
<br />
qT9. For how many groups are you a team contact?<br />
<br />
qT10. Do you spend about the allocated time, or more, or much more, or less or much less?<br />
<br />
qT11. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qT12. Do you allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qT13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qT14. What tasks do the chairs / participants do?<br />
<br />
qT15. What tasks should the chairs/participants do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qT16. What tasks are being done manually that should be automated?<br />
<br />
=== For Chairs ===<br />
<br />
qC9. Do your team contact(s) effectively allocate the time specified in the charter?<br />
<br />
qC10. Do you and other group participants provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC11. Do your team contacts allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qC12. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qC14. What tasks do the team contacts do?<br />
<br />
qC15. What tasks should the team contacts do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qC16. What benefit does the Team Contact(s) provide to the group? Please reply with respect to the time actually available as well as the time formally allocated<br />
<br />
qC17. What would be the impact of not having the team contact<br />
<br />
[NR] Questions and options are given below:<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the amount of work time your Team Contact has to work on assisting with your group? (The group requires a lot more time, The group requires some more time, About right, The group requires less time, The group requires a lot less time)<br />
[cmn] Adopted as qC12 (should have been there already)<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the benefit of the work your group receives from your Team Contact, in the time they have available? (Extremely beneficial, Beneficial, Average, Not beneficial, Causes a disadvantage to the group)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC16<br />
<br />
q. If your group did not have a Team Contact, how would this affect your group? (The group would not complete the work and close, The group would be at a huge loss but would continue, The group will run the same, The group will benefit)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC17<br />
<br />
q. What level of technical assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Essential guidance, Provides some guidance, Same as a group participant, Provides no guidance, Provides incorrect or illogical guidance)<br />
<br />
q. What level of managerial (meeting booking. webex sorting, Process advancement) assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Completes most of the managerial work, Completes a moderate amount of the managerial work, Completes the necessary managerial work only, Completes no managerial work, Is more unhelpful than helpful)<br />
[cmn]These two questions are covered by C14/C15 and corresponding questions about chairs for team contacts.<br />
[/NR]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness&diff=110972AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness2020-01-15T05:42:39Z<p>Charles: /* For all */ Edits suggesed by Léonie</p>
<hr />
<div>This is one of the [[AB/2019_Priorities#Team_contact_effectiveness_and_chair_satisfaction_with_support.|AB 2019 priorities]]. The goal of this exercise is to assess how well we match the working requirements of groups in assigning chairs and team contacts.<br />
<br />
The humans who collect and collate the information need to be identified. There should be enough to ensure responders can pick one they trust, few enough to provide further anonymisation of the data collected.<br />
<br />
== Where we are / next steps ==<br />
<br />
This is a proposed work item. If the AB wants to proceed given this outline, the next steps would be to identify the people who collect the raw data. I think there should be one or two team contacts, one or two chairs, and two or three people who are neither, and at least one person to collate the overall results - chaals will volunteer but maybe there is someone better to do that.<br />
* [JJ input] It is unclear to me whether this is proposed to be a WBS survey (or similar) or collection of the raw data via interview. I could go either way, but would favor the first. In that case, the questions need to be more crisp and mostly mutiple choice in nature. If it is intended that the survey be via interview, then 10 minutes is a gross underestimate of how long such conversations will take. In a discussion with 20 "leading" questions, I would expect it would take more like an hour.<br />
It is meant to be done in email - see methodology<br />
<br />
* [JJ input] I would recommend a team of people collating the overall results to prevent any biases. I would be pleased to serve on such a committee.<br />
you would be a poor choice for collating results given your role as CEO and the explicit intention to avoid this data being used in any personal performance assessment<br />
** [JJ] Fair point.<br />
<br />
== Proposed methodology ==<br />
<br />
This is ''''explicitly not'''' a performance assessment of individual chairs or team contacts, so the design is to ensure it cannot be effectively used as one, in order to minimise the likelihood of the information provided being biased towards such use.<br />
<br />
The questions will be provided by email, with answers to be returned in email to someone chosen by the responder from the list of volunteer 'aggregators', who will provide anonymisation<br />
<br />
The aggregators, people who collect raw data will be asked to keep it, securely and in confidence, until 3 months after the final results are produced, and then to delete it. This means there is a path to asking further questions for clarification, while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for respondents.<br />
<br />
The anonymised results will be collated to provide an overview of the answers which will be made available to team and members.<br />
<br />
Responses will be collated by a person who may be asked to provide further information and will individually contact you in confidence. You are free to choose who in the list you want to be your "contact". <br />
<br />
<br />
[JJ input] CEPC is getting greater attention in our community and the roles of Team Contact and Chairs are not always clear to them. Do we need a set of questions about that?<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
<br />
It should take more than 10 minutes to answer the question for a given group. We are looking for thoughtful answers. If you are not sure of an answer please say so - the assumption is that otherwise you're pretty certain. <br />
<br />
=== For all ===<br />
q1. Which tasks required to run the Group effectively should be automated better?<br />
<br />
Please answer all the remaining questions (including those on horizontal review) separately for each group. No need to identify the groups - just give them a number.<br />
<br />
q2. Does the group understand and efficiently follow the Process?<br />
<br />
q3. Is the team contact '''allocation''' about right, more than needed, or insufficient?<br />
<br />
[JJ input] For those that do not answer "about right", I would ask a follow-up to characterize what more the TC should be doing or to characterize what tasks the TC should stop doing.<br />
-[CMN] several of the questions for chairs/team contacts go into this further.<br />
<br />
"Horizontal review":<br />
For the remaining questions please answer with regard to each of<br />
<br />
* API design and developer ergonomics (TAG)<br />
* Accessibility (APA WG)<br />
* Internationalisation (i18n)<br />
* Privacy (PING)<br />
* Security<br />
<br />
q4. Does the group have internal champions (you or participants) for each horizontal aspect?<br />
<br />
q5. Does the group adequately address issues in each area, and how do you know?<br />
<br />
q6. Do the groups responsible for Horizontal review provide adequate support?<br />
<br />
q7. Are there improvements in tooling or procedures that you want for horizontal review?<br />
<br />
q8. Does input from Horizontal review come in sufficiently early in the spec development process to address issues adequately?<br />
<br />
q. Does the group adequately address HR review issues that are raised<br />
This question appears to be the same as q8<br />
<br />
[additional JJ input] Do we need to separately ask HR groups (e.g. i18N, APA, PING) what they think of the HR process?<br />
No, that is a separate priority project being led by Léonie (which is ahead of this one)<br />
<br />
=== For Team contacts: ===<br />
<br />
qT9. For how many groups are you a team contact?<br />
<br />
qT10. Do you spend about the allocated time, or more, or much more, or less or much less?<br />
<br />
qT11. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qT12. Do you allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qT13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qT14. What tasks do the chairs / participants do?<br />
<br />
qT15. What tasks should the chairs/participants do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
=== For Chairs ===<br />
<br />
qC9. Do your team contact(s) effectively allocate the time specified in the charter?<br />
<br />
qC10. Do you and other group participants provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC11. Do your team contacts allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qC12. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qC14. What tasks do the team contacts do?<br />
<br />
qC15. What tasks should the team contacts do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qC16. What benefit does the Team Contact(s) provide to the group? Please reply with respect to the time actually available as well as the time formally allocated<br />
<br />
qC17. What would be the impact of not having the team contact<br />
<br />
[NR] Questions and options are given below:<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the amount of work time your Team Contact has to work on assisting with your group? (The group requires a lot more time, The group requires some more time, About right, The group requires less time, The group requires a lot less time)<br />
[cmn] Adopted as qC12 (should have been there already)<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the benefit of the work your group receives from your Team Contact, in the time they have available? (Extremely beneficial, Beneficial, Average, Not beneficial, Causes a disadvantage to the group)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC16<br />
<br />
q. If your group did not have a Team Contact, how would this affect your group? (The group would not complete the work and close, The group would be at a huge loss but would continue, The group will run the same, The group will benefit)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC17<br />
<br />
q. What level of technical assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Essential guidance, Provides some guidance, Same as a group participant, Provides no guidance, Provides incorrect or illogical guidance)<br />
<br />
q. What level of managerial (meeting booking. webex sorting, Process advancement) assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Completes most of the managerial work, Completes a moderate amount of the managerial work, Completes the necessary managerial work only, Completes no managerial work, Is more unhelpful than helpful)<br />
[cmn]These two questions are covered by C14/C15 and corresponding questions about chairs for team contacts.<br />
[/NR]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness&diff=110971AB/2019-TeamContactEffectiveness2020-01-15T05:41:04Z<p>Charles: /* Proposed methodology */ editorial</p>
<hr />
<div>This is one of the [[AB/2019_Priorities#Team_contact_effectiveness_and_chair_satisfaction_with_support.|AB 2019 priorities]]. The goal of this exercise is to assess how well we match the working requirements of groups in assigning chairs and team contacts.<br />
<br />
The humans who collect and collate the information need to be identified. There should be enough to ensure responders can pick one they trust, few enough to provide further anonymisation of the data collected.<br />
<br />
== Where we are / next steps ==<br />
<br />
This is a proposed work item. If the AB wants to proceed given this outline, the next steps would be to identify the people who collect the raw data. I think there should be one or two team contacts, one or two chairs, and two or three people who are neither, and at least one person to collate the overall results - chaals will volunteer but maybe there is someone better to do that.<br />
* [JJ input] It is unclear to me whether this is proposed to be a WBS survey (or similar) or collection of the raw data via interview. I could go either way, but would favor the first. In that case, the questions need to be more crisp and mostly mutiple choice in nature. If it is intended that the survey be via interview, then 10 minutes is a gross underestimate of how long such conversations will take. In a discussion with 20 "leading" questions, I would expect it would take more like an hour.<br />
It is meant to be done in email - see methodology<br />
<br />
* [JJ input] I would recommend a team of people collating the overall results to prevent any biases. I would be pleased to serve on such a committee.<br />
you would be a poor choice for collating results given your role as CEO and the explicit intention to avoid this data being used in any personal performance assessment<br />
** [JJ] Fair point.<br />
<br />
== Proposed methodology ==<br />
<br />
This is ''''explicitly not'''' a performance assessment of individual chairs or team contacts, so the design is to ensure it cannot be effectively used as one, in order to minimise the likelihood of the information provided being biased towards such use.<br />
<br />
The questions will be provided by email, with answers to be returned in email to someone chosen by the responder from the list of volunteer 'aggregators', who will provide anonymisation<br />
<br />
The aggregators, people who collect raw data will be asked to keep it, securely and in confidence, until 3 months after the final results are produced, and then to delete it. This means there is a path to asking further questions for clarification, while ensuring a high level of confidentiality for respondents.<br />
<br />
The anonymised results will be collated to provide an overview of the answers which will be made available to team and members.<br />
<br />
Responses will be collated by a person who may be asked to provide further information and will individually contact you in confidence. You are free to choose who in the list you want to be your "contact". <br />
<br />
<br />
[JJ input] CEPC is getting greater attention in our community and the roles of Team Contact and Chairs are not always clear to them. Do we need a set of questions about that?<br />
<br />
== Questions ==<br />
<br />
It should take more than 10 minutes to answer the question for a given group. We are looking for thoughtful answers. If you are not sure of an answer please say so - the assumption is that otherwise you're pretty certain. <br />
<br />
=== For all ===<br />
q1. Which tasks required to run the Group effectively should be automated better?<br />
<br />
Please answer all the remaining questions (including those on horizontal review) separately for each group. No need to identify the groups - just give them a number. If you participate in a group but are not the Team Contact or chair, additional answers for each group are appreciated, but please identify that you are answering as a participant not chair/team contact.<br />
<br />
q2. Does the group understand and efficiently follow the Process?<br />
<br />
q3. Is the team contact '''allocation''' (i.e. assuming the team contact effectively works for the allocated time) about right, more than needed, or insufficient?<br />
<br />
[JJ input] For those that do not answer "about right", I would ask a follow-up to characterize what more the TC should be doing or to characterize what tasks the TC should stop doing.<br />
-[CMN] several of the questions for chairs/team contacts go into this further.<br />
<br />
"Horizontal review":<br />
For the remaining questions please answer with regard to each of<br />
<br />
* API design and developer ergonomics (TAG)<br />
* Accessibility (WAI)<br />
* Internationalisation (i18n)<br />
* Privacy (PING)<br />
* Security (Security IG, ...)<br />
<br />
q4. Does the group have internal champions (you or participants) for each horizontal aspect?<br />
<br />
q5. Does the group adequately address issues in each area, and how do you know?<br />
<br />
q6. Do the groups responsible for Horizontal review provide adequate support?<br />
<br />
q7. Are there improvements in tooling or procedures that you want for horizontal review?<br />
<br />
q8. Does input from Horizontal review come in sufficiently early in the spec development process to address issues adequately?<br />
<br />
<br />
q. Does the group adequately address HR review issues that are raised<br />
This question appears to be the same as q8<br />
<br />
[additional JJ input] Do we need to separately ask HR groups (e.g. i18N, APA, PING) what they think of the HR process?<br />
No, that is a separate priority project being led by Léonie (which is ahead of this one)<br />
<br />
=== For Team contacts: ===<br />
<br />
qT9. For how many groups are you a team contact?<br />
<br />
qT10. Do you spend about the allocated time, or more, or much more, or less or much less?<br />
<br />
qT11. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qT12. Do you allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qT13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qT14. What tasks do the chairs / participants do?<br />
<br />
qT15. What tasks should the chairs/participants do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
=== For Chairs ===<br />
<br />
qC9. Do your team contact(s) effectively allocate the time specified in the charter?<br />
<br />
qC10. Do you and other group participants provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC11. Do your team contacts allocate regular work time to the group weekly, monthly or less regularly?<br />
<br />
qC12. Do the group and its chairs provide about the right amount of effort, not enough, or more than should be required?<br />
<br />
qC13. What are the tasks you have to do?<br />
<br />
qC14. What tasks do the team contacts do?<br />
<br />
qC15. What tasks should the team contacts do, that you have to cover?<br />
<br />
qC16. What benefit does the Team Contact(s) provide to the group? Please reply with respect to the time actually available as well as the time formally allocated<br />
<br />
qC17. What would be the impact of not having the team contact<br />
<br />
[NR] Questions and options are given below:<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the amount of work time your Team Contact has to work on assisting with your group? (The group requires a lot more time, The group requires some more time, About right, The group requires less time, The group requires a lot less time)<br />
[cmn] Adopted as qC12 (should have been there already)<br />
<br />
q. How would you rate the benefit of the work your group receives from your Team Contact, in the time they have available? (Extremely beneficial, Beneficial, Average, Not beneficial, Causes a disadvantage to the group)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC16<br />
<br />
q. If your group did not have a Team Contact, how would this affect your group? (The group would not complete the work and close, The group would be at a huge loss but would continue, The group will run the same, The group will benefit)<br />
[cmn] adopted as qC17<br />
<br />
q. What level of technical assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Essential guidance, Provides some guidance, Same as a group participant, Provides no guidance, Provides incorrect or illogical guidance)<br />
<br />
q. What level of managerial (meeting booking. webex sorting, Process advancement) assistance do you get from your Team Contact? (Completes most of the managerial work, Completes a moderate amount of the managerial work, Completes the necessary managerial work only, Completes no managerial work, Is more unhelpful than helpful)<br />
[cmn]These two questions are covered by C14/C15 and corresponding questions about chairs for team contacts.<br />
[/NR]</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110869AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-26T23:53:24Z<p>Charles: /* "Strategy" funnel / owrk pipeline */ tpyo</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
# Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
# AB panel responding to AC questions. It would help if these were provided in advance.<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel (possible focus on WGs, getting things done in W3C)<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions<br />
<br />
<br />
And also Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Web for All: how we fulfill that mission ==<br />
Ask horizontal review groups for an example of meaningful input to a spec development. Consider example of Inclusive XR workshop.<br />
Then give overview of new tooling for review management and coordination. <br />
<br />
(was "Security (and horizontal review)")<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Browser perspective on the web ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes (provisional)<br />
<br />
== "Strategy" funnel / work pipeline ==<br />
<br />
NB This was not discussed at the AB face to face, but posted to the AB mailing list afterward.<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Likely speaker: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
Goal: Ensure the AC understands and can discuss the pipeline for future work with W3C management<br />
<br />
Description: An overview of the funnel, and a look at how things do or don't move forward in a timely way from idea to actual Working Group. This should use real examples but not dive too deep, allowing plenty of time for the AC to raise and discuss questions on the items that interest them. It might be worth asking for written questions in advance, given that the funnel is available to everyone.</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110866AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-26T02:29:08Z<p>Charles: /* AB Update */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
# Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
# AB panel responding to AC questions. It would help if these were provided in advance.<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel (possible focus on WGs, getting things done in W3C)<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions<br />
<br />
<br />
And also Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Web for All: how we fulfill that mission ==<br />
Ask horizontal review groups for an example of meaningful input to a spec development. Consider example of Inclusive XR workshop.<br />
Then give overview of new tooling for review management and coordination. <br />
<br />
(was "Security (and horizontal review)")<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Browser perspective on the web ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes (provisional)<br />
<br />
== "Strategy" funnel / owrk pipeline ==<br />
<br />
NB This was not discussed at the AB face to face, but posted to the AB mailing list afterward.<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Likely speaker: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
Goal: Ensure the AC understands and can discuss the pipeline for future work with W3C management<br />
<br />
Description: An overview of the funnel, and a look at how things do or don't move forward in a timely way from idea to actual Working Group. This should use real examples but not dive too deep, allowing plenty of time for the AC to raise and discuss questions on the items that interest them. It might be worth asking for written questions in advance, given that the funnel is available to everyone.</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110865AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-26T02:27:42Z<p>Charles: add funnel session</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel (possible focus on AB priorities; the AB as a body that represents the AC)<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel (possible focus on WGs, getting things done in W3C)<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions<br />
<br />
<br />
And also Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Web for All: how we fulfill that mission ==<br />
Ask horizontal review groups for an example of meaningful input to a spec development. Consider example of Inclusive XR workshop.<br />
Then give overview of new tooling for review management and coordination. <br />
<br />
(was "Security (and horizontal review)")<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Browser perspective on the web ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes (provisional)<br />
<br />
== "Strategy" funnel / owrk pipeline ==<br />
<br />
NB This was not discussed at the AB face to face, but posted to the AB mailing list afterward.<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Likely speaker: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
Goal: Ensure the AC understands and can discuss the pipeline for future work with W3C management<br />
<br />
Description: An overview of the funnel, and a look at how things do or don't move forward in a timely way from idea to actual Working Group. This should use real examples but not dive too deep, allowing plenty of time for the AC to raise and discuss questions on the items that interest them. It might be worth asking for written questions in advance, given that the funnel is available to everyone.</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110850AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-23T14:01:52Z<p>Charles: /* Task 10: Scope */</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.1: Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.1: scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.2: Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.2:scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 2: scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
<br />
=== Task 3: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.1: Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== task 4.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.2: Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 4.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.1: Registries ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.2: Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman and Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 6: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
<br />
=== Task 7: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
<br />
=== Task 98: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
<br />
=== task 9: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffee and Chaals Nevile<br />
<br />
<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
=== Task 11: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110849AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-23T14:01:23Z<p>Charles: /* Task 10: Scope */ a rough idea of scope...</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.1: Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.1: scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.2: Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.2:scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 2: scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
<br />
=== Task 3: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.1: Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== task 4.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.2: Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 4.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.1: Registries ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.2: Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman and Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 6: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
<br />
=== Task 7: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
<br />
=== Task 98: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
<br />
=== task 9: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffee and Chaals Nevile<br />
<br />
=== Task 10: Scope ===<br />
; Goals<br />
: Describe the features of W3C that provide value to members, and which of those provide long-term value<br />
; Description<br />
: Propose features, ask for input from members, and measure support from actual members about whether and how much they value each proposed important feature. These can be existing features of W3C or new initiatives, as long as such new initiatives can actually be delivered within the resources of the W3C<br />
; Deliverables<br />
: A document that can be used for member marketing and account management, that has been validated by real members' feedback.<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
=== Task 11: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110848AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-23T13:57:04Z<p>Charles: /* Task 1.1: scope */</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.1: Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.1: scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council, develop bylaws that describe the management of W3C, and review in the AC. Prepare for Steering Committee review and acceptance.<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.2: Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.2:scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 2: scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
<br />
=== Task 3: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.1: Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== task 4.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.2: Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 4.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.1: Registries ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.2: Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman and Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 6: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
<br />
=== Task 7: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
<br />
=== Task 98: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
<br />
=== task 9: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffee and Chaals Nevile<br />
<br />
=== Task 10: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
=== Task 11: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110847AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-23T13:56:06Z<p>Charles: /* Task 1.1: scope */ set a bit of shape.</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.1: Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.1: scope ====<br />
<br />
;Goals<br />
:Produce a set of bylaws that are legally acceptable for "reasonable" jurisdictions, and that structure a W3C entity that the Steering Committee and members will agree to.<br />
;Description<br />
:Working with W3C legal council<br />
;Deliverables<br />
* A proposed set of bylaws, by 30 June 2020<br />
* Legal review and opinion that they are acceptable in the jurisdiction(s) in which W3C proposes to register its legal entity<br />
* Steering comittee review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
* AC review and acceptance by 30 September 2020<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.2: Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.2:scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 2: scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
<br />
=== Task 3: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.1: Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== task 4.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.2: Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 4.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.1: Registries ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.2: Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman and Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 6: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
<br />
=== Task 7: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
<br />
=== Task 98: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
<br />
=== task 9: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffee and Chaals Nevile<br />
<br />
=== Task 10: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
=== Task 11: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110846AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-23T13:50:16Z<p>Charles: /* Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) */ markup</p>
<hr />
<div>Priority tasks that the W3C Advisory Board (AB) is taking on during 2020.<br />
<br />
== Task 1: W3C Legal Entity (LE) ==<br />
* Leads: Chris Wilson and Eric Siow<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.1: Bylaws ===<br />
* Leads: To Be Completed (TBC)<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.1: scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 1.2: Fund raising ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 1.2:scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 2: W3C strategy ==<br />
* Leads: Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 2: scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 3: W3C form and structure ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffe and David Singer<br />
<br />
=== Task 3: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 4: Incubation at W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Wendy Seltzer and Tzviya Siegman<br />
* Supporters: Chris Wilson<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.1: Incubation guidance ===<br />
* Leads:* TBC<br />
<br />
==== task 4.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 4.2: Review incubation process ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 4.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 5: Process 2020 ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal and Elika Etemad<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.1: Registries ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.1: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
=== Task 5.2: Ever* ===<br />
* Leads: TBC<br />
<br />
==== Task 5.2: Scope ====<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 6: W3C Globalisation ==<br />
* Leads: Jay Kishigami<br />
* Supporters: Hongru Zhu, Tzviya Siegman and Avneesh Singh<br />
<br />
=== Task 6: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 7: Role of the Director ==<br />
* Leads: Florian Rivoal<br />
<br />
=== Task 7: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 8: Next big thing for the web ==<br />
* Leads: Hongru Zhu and Wendy Seltzer<br />
<br />
=== Task 98: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 9: Scope of the W3C ==<br />
* Leads: Léonie Watson, Chaals Nevile and Tzviya Siegman<br />
<br />
=== task 9: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 10: W3C member value ==<br />
* Leads: Jeff Jaffee and Chaals Nevile<br />
<br />
=== Task 10: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC<br />
<br />
== Task 11: W3C tooling ==<br />
* Leads: Elika Etemad and David Singer<br />
=== Task 11: Scope ===<br />
* Goals: TBC<br />
* Description: TBC<br />
* Deliverables: TBC</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110830AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T14:00:27Z<p>Charles: /* Technology updates */ add demos</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
<br />
== Demo sessions ==<br />
<br />
owner: Judy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes (additional)<br />
<br />
And also Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110829AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:54:57Z<p>Charles: /* Security (and horizontal review) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110828AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:46:50Z<p>Charles: /* Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110827AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:44:17Z<p>Charles: /* State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110826AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:44:05Z<p>Charles: /* panel / keynote by outsiders */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110825AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:43:50Z<p>Charles: /* Discussion on W3C scope */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
Some presentation of what we have done as part of the priority task, and discussion where the AC can argue amongst themselves to decide what they think<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110824AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:42:45Z<p>Charles: /* Discussion on W3C scope */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and maybe chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110823AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:42:34Z<p>Charles: /* Discussion on W3C scope */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Léonie (and mayeb chaals will help)<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110822AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:42:15Z<p>Charles: /* Technology updates */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: <br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110821AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:41:44Z<p>Charles: /* TAG update */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: <br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110820AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:41:14Z<p>Charles: /* panel / keynote by outsiders */</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner:<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: <br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
No extra time, we move it to the topic<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110819AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:39:42Z<p>Charles: got as far as CEPC and then ratholed</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 0 minutes<br />
<br />
(maybe 5 in new technology / lightning talks)<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya<br />
<br />
time: 15 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner:<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy, Tzviya<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: <br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110818AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:32:13Z<p>Charles: some updates...</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya, Léonie<br />
<br />
time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner:<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
# Lightning talks / New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
# Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
And also<br />
<br />
# Awards?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: <br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110817AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:28:33Z<p>Charles: some recording and some guessing that might be over-written later</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Chris and Eric<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Florian and Dave<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes (around a break)<br />
<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Tzviya, Léonie<br />
<br />
time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
<br />
Owner:<br />
<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Judy<br />
<br />
Time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
## Lightning talks<br />
## New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
## Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
<br />
== Awards ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
<br />
Owner: <br />
<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
<br />
guest speaker<br />
<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
<br />
Owner: guest speaker<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Avneesh<br />
<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110816AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:21:15Z<p>Charles: some more pieces done</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
time: 30 minutes<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: chaals<br />
Time: 45 minutes<br />
<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities - 5 minutes<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Jeff<br />
Time: 90 minutes<br />
<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
## Lightning talks<br />
## New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
## Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
== Awards ==<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
== panel / keynote by outsiders ==<br />
== State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG) ==<br />
== Strategy ==<br />
== Security (and horizontal review) ==</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110815AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:17:28Z<p>Charles: privacy and functionality conflicting</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
time: 60 minutes<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
<br />
== AB Update ==<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities<br />
## AB panel<br />
<br />
== W3M Update ==<br />
## CEO update <br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
== Legal entity update ==<br />
== Process 2020 ==<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
== Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka) ==<br />
== Revised CEPC, ombuds program ==<br />
== TAG update ==<br />
== Technology updates ==<br />
## Lightning talks<br />
## New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
## Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
== Awards ==<br />
== Discussion on W3C scope ==<br />
# pannel / keynote by outsiders<br />
# State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG)<br />
# Strategy<br />
# Security (and horizontal review)</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/Candidate_topics_for_AC_2020&diff=110814AB/Candidate topics for AC 20202019-11-20T13:15:38Z<p>Charles: starting</p>
<hr />
<div>== when privacy and functionality are in tension ==<br />
<br />
Owner: Wendy<br />
<br />
== Headcount ==<br />
<br />
A detailed report on how technical headcount is assigned to WGs (core, industry, horizontal review, incubation, tools) <br />
<br />
<br />
# AB Update<br />
## Present AB 2020 Priorities<br />
## AB panel<br />
# W3M Update<br />
## CEO update<br />
## Practice "board reports" by w3m<br />
## W3M Pannel<br />
## Financial report<br />
# Legal entity update<br />
# Process 2020<br />
## Ever*<br />
## Registries<br />
## Patent Policy<br />
## Other Process stuff<br />
# Web advertising (holdover from Fukuoka)<br />
# Revised CEPC, ombuds program<br />
# TAG update<br />
# Technology updates<br />
## Lightning talks<br />
## New technical topics: WebRTC best practice, QUIC best practice, etc (is this the same as the previous point?)<br />
## Demo sessions / requests for demos<br />
# Awards<br />
# Discussion on W3C scope<br />
# pannel / keynote by outsiders<br />
# State of the web in Korea (suggestion by LG)<br />
# Strategy<br />
# Security (and horizontal review)</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110782AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-19T13:56:11Z<p>Charles: /* Assignments */ clarify titles</p>
<hr />
<div>Note: please use the full name of AB members assigned to priority tasks. Feedback from the AC was that initials are hard to associate with actual people.<br />
<br />
= Candidate Priorities =<br />
<br />
# Legal Entity - includes multiple tasks: Fundraising; By-laws; ...?<br />
# Deliver Process 2020 with Ever# and Registries, and followup<br />
# Tooling improvements; Roadmap and policy for tools: cross-W3C information dissemination, converging on common tools, tooling requirements (accessible, generally available, etc) and options, tooling for Horizontal Review, tooling for ever#<br />
# Maintenance, versioning, obsoleting, and replacing: get a better (and more consistent and better documented) process for maintenance and a holistic view<br />
# Role of the Director<br />
# W3C Strategy - determine prioritised goals, action plan to achieve them, make them visible<br />
# Identify the Next Big Thing<br />
# Next steps on Web Payments<br />
# Next steps on WebRTC<br />
# Next steps on Web Publishing<br />
# What is the scope of W3C in e.g. accessibility, automotive, publishing, ...<br />
# Tradeoff between Privacy and Function, standards, values, etc<br />
# Security - what are we doing here, what should we be doing, and how do we do it better. Security of W3C itself, specs, policy issues...<br />
# Globalization and Inclusion, places where we are almost absent, where tech work is out of step with business requirements and use<br />
# Relationship to Open Source<br />
# incubation guidance, e.g. transition from CG to WG. How do you find the sweet spot between blue-sky specification and rubber-stamping something already implemented with known issues that can't be fixed. does it actually do what we want?<br />
# Value of W3C Membership and how to make it "sticky" given breadth and diversity of membership<br />
# The big question: is the form and style of the consortium the right one for the next 25 years (staff/dues 'heavy', strong membership model, etc.)<br />
# W3C's role in decentralisation/distributed identity etc.<br />
# Better engagement with diverse member organisations<br />
# Voice interfaces in the browser<br />
# Horizontal Review redesign<br />
# Effective communication with the whole membership (!= AC)<br />
<br />
= Assignments = <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Topic!!H!!M!!L!!Weight!!Lead<br />
|-<br />
|1 Legal Entity||7||2||0||25||Chris and Eric<br />
|-<br />
|6 W3C Strategy||5||4||0||23||Avneesh<br />
|-<br />
|18 Staff & Structure||4||1||3||17||David & Jeff<br />
|-<br />
|16 Incubation||1||6||1||16||Wendy & Chris & Tzviya<br />
|-<br />
|2 P2020||4||1||1||15||Florian and Elika<br />
|-<br />
|14 Globalization||3||2||2||15||Jay, Judy, Tzviya, Avneesh<br />
|-<br />
|5 Role of the Director||2||2||3||13||Florian<br />
|-<br />
|7 Next Big Thing for the Web||2||2||2||12||Judy and Wendy<br />
|-<br />
|11 W3C Scope||3||1||1||12||Leonie, Charles, Tzviya<br />
|-<br />
|17 Member Value||2||1||3||11||Charles and Jeff<br />
|-<br />
|3 Tooling||2||1||1||9||Elika and David<br />
|-<br />
|22 Horizontal Review||1||1||3||8||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|4 Versioning||0||1||3||6||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|12 Privacy||0||3||0||6||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|10 Web Publishing||0||2||1||5||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|13 Security||0||1||3||5||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|15 Open Source||0||1||2||4||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|21 Voice||0||1||2||4||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|20 Engaging Diverse||0||1||1||3||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|19 Decent||0||1||0||2||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|8 Web Payments||0||0||1||1||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|9 WebRTC||0||0||1||1||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|23 Effective Communication||0||0||1||1||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|}</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110761AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-19T12:14:34Z<p>Charles: /* Candidate Priorities */ incubation == incubation</p>
<hr />
<div>Note: please use the full name of AB members assigned to priority tasks. Feedback from the AC was that initials are hard to associate with actual people.<br />
<br />
= Candidate Priorities =<br />
<br />
* Legal Entity - includes multiple tasks: Fundraising; By-laws; ...?<br />
* Deliver Process 2020 with Ever* and Registries, and followup<br />
* Tooling improvements; Roadmap and policy for tools: cross-W3C information dissemination, converging on common tools, tooling requirements (accessible, generally available, etc) and options, tooling for Horizontal Review, tooling for ever*<br />
* Maintenance, versioning, obsoleting, and replacing: get a better (and more consistent and better documented) process for maintenance and a holistic view<br />
* Role of the Director<br />
* W3C Strategy - determine prioritised goals, action plan to achieve them, make them visible<br />
* Identify the Next Big Thing<br />
* Next steps on Web Payments<br />
* Next steps on WebRTC<br />
* Next steps on Web Publishing<br />
* What is the scope of W3C in e.g. accessibility, automotive, publishing, ...<br />
* Tradeoff between Privacy and Function, standards, values, etc<br />
* Security - what are we doing here, what should we be doing, and how do we do it better. Security of W3C itself, specs, policy issues...<br />
* Globalization and Inclusion, places where we are almost absent, where tech work is out of step with business requirements and use<br />
* Relationship to Open Source<br />
* incubation guidance, e.g. transition from CG to WG. How do you find the sweet spot between blue-sky specification and rubber-stamping something already implemented with known issues that can't be fixed. does it actually do what we want?<br />
* Value of W3C Membership and how to make it "sticky" given breadth and diversity of membership<br />
* The big question: is the form and style of the consortium the right one for the next 25 years (staff/dues 'heavy', strong membership model, etc.)<br />
* W3C's role in decentralisation/distributed identity etc.<br />
* Better engagement with diverse member organisations<br />
* Voice interfaces in the browser<br />
* Horizontal Review redesign<br />
* Effective communication with the whole membership (!= AC)<br />
<br />
= Assignments = <br />
=== Assignments ===<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Topic!!H!!M!!L!!Weight!!Lead<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|}</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110760AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-19T12:11:17Z<p>Charles: /* Candidate Priorities */ delete registries because they are important</p>
<hr />
<div>Note: please use the full name of AB members assigned to priority tasks. Feedback from the AC was that initials are hard to associate with actual people.<br />
<br />
= Candidate Priorities =<br />
<br />
* Legal Entity - includes multiple tasks: Fundraising; By-laws; ...?<br />
* Deliver Process 2020 with Ever* and Registries, and followup<br />
* Tooling improvements; Roadmap and policy for tools: cross-W3C information dissemination, converging on common tools, tooling requirements (accessible, generally available, etc) and options, tooling for Horizontal Review, tooling for ever*<br />
* Maintenance, versioning, obsoleting, and replacing: get a better (and more consistent and better documented) process for maintenance and a holistic view<br />
* Role of the Director<br />
* W3C Strategy - determine prioritised goals, action plan to achieve them, make them visible<br />
* Identify the Next Big Thing<br />
* Next steps on Web Payments<br />
* Next steps on WebRTC<br />
* Next steps on Web Publishing<br />
* What is the scope of W3C in e.g. accessibility, automotive, publishing, ...<br />
* Tradeoff between Privacy and Function, standards, values, etc<br />
* Security - what are we doing here, what should we be doing, and how do we do it better. Security of W3C itself, specs, policy issues...<br />
* Globalization and Inclusion, places where we are almost absent, where tech work is out of step with business requirements and use<br />
* Relationship to Open Source<br />
* incubation guidance, e.g. transition from CG to WG. How do you find the sweet spot between blue-sky specification and rubber-stamping something already implemented with known issues that can't be fixed.<br />
* Value of W3C Membership and how to make it "sticky" given breadth and diversity of membership<br />
* The big question: is the form and style of the consortium the right one for the next 25 years (staff/dues 'heavy', strong membership model, etc.)<br />
* W3C's role in decentralisation/distributed identity etc.<br />
* Better engagement with diverse member organisations<br />
* Review incubation<br />
* Voice interfaces in the browser<br />
* Horizontal Review redesign<br />
* Effective communication with the whole membership (!= AC)<br />
<br />
= Assignments = <br />
=== Assignments ===<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Topic!!H!!M!!L!!Weight!!Lead<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|}</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110758AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-19T12:08:36Z<p>Charles: /* Candidate Priorities */ incubation guidance</p>
<hr />
<div>Note: please use the full name of AB members assigned to priority tasks. Feedback from the AC was that initials are hard to associate with actual people.<br />
<br />
= Candidate Priorities =<br />
<br />
* Legal Entity - includes multiple tasks: Fundraising; By-laws; ...?<br />
* Deliver Process 2020 with Ever* and Registries, and followup<br />
* Tooling improvements; Roadmap and policy for tools: cross-W3C information dissemination, converging on common tools, tooling requirements (accessible, generally available, etc) and options, tooling for Horizontal Review, tooling for ever*<br />
* Maintenance, versioning, obsoleting, and replacing: get a better (and more consistent and better documented) process for maintenance and a holistic view<br />
* Role of the Director<br />
* W3C Strategy - determine prioritised goals, action plan to achieve them, make them visible<br />
* Identify the Next Big Thing<br />
* Next steps on Web Payments<br />
* Next steps on WebRTC<br />
* Next steps on Web Publishing<br />
* What is the scope of W3C in e.g. accessibility, automotive, publishing, ...<br />
* Tradeoff between Privacy and Function, standards, values, etc<br />
* Security - what are we doing here, what should we be doing, and how do we do it better. Security of W3C itself, specs, policy issues...<br />
* Globalization and Inclusion, places where we are almost absent, where tech work is out of step with business requirements and use<br />
* Relationship to Open Source<br />
* incubation guidance, e.g. transition from CG to WG. How do you find the sweet spot between blue-sky specification and rubber-stamping something already implemented with known issues that can't be fixed.<br />
* Value of W3C Membership and how to make it "sticky"<br />
* The big question: is the form and style of the consortium the right one for the next 25 years (staff/dues 'heavy', strong membership model, etc.)<br />
* Next steps for registries<br />
* W3C's role in decentralisation/distributed identity etc.<br />
* Better engagement with diverse member organisations<br />
* Review incubation<br />
* Voice interfaces in the browser<br />
* Horizontal Review redesign<br />
<br />
= Assignments = <br />
=== Assignments ===<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Topic!!H!!M!!L!!Weight!!Lead<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|}</div>Charleshttps://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=AB/2020_Priorities&diff=110757AB/2020 Priorities2019-11-19T12:01:38Z<p>Charles: /* Candidate Priorities */ globalization and inclusion</p>
<hr />
<div>Note: please use the full name of AB members assigned to priority tasks. Feedback from the AC was that initials are hard to associate with actual people.<br />
<br />
= Candidate Priorities =<br />
<br />
* Legal Entity - includes multiple tasks: Fundraising; By-laws; ...?<br />
* Deliver Process 2020 with Ever* and Registries, and followup<br />
* Tooling improvements; Roadmap and policy for tools: cross-W3C information dissemination, converging on common tools, tooling requirements (accessible, generally available, etc) and options, tooling for Horizontal Review, tooling for ever*<br />
* Maintenance, versioning, obsoleting, and replacing: get a better (and more consistent and better documented) process for maintenance and a holistic view<br />
* Role of the Director<br />
* W3C Strategy - determine prioritised goals, action plan to achieve them, make them visible<br />
* Identify the Next Big Thing<br />
* Next steps on Web Payments<br />
* Next steps on WebRTC<br />
* Next steps on Web Publishing<br />
* What is the scope of W3C in e.g. accessibility, automotive, publishing, ...<br />
* Tradeoff between Privacy and Function, standards, values, etc<br />
* Security - what are we doing here, what should we be doing, and how do we do it better. Security of W3C itself, specs, policy issues...<br />
* Globalization and Inclusion, places where we are almost absent, where tech work is out of step with business requirements and use<br />
* Relationship to Open Source<br />
* incubation guidance, e.g. transition from CG to WG<br />
* Value of W3C Membership and how to make it "sticky"<br />
* The big question: is the form and style of the consortium the right one for the next 25 years (staff/dues 'heavy', strong membership model, etc.)<br />
* Next steps for registries<br />
* W3C's role in decentralisation/distributed identity etc.<br />
* Better engagement with diverse member organisations<br />
* Review incubation<br />
* Voice interfaces in the browser<br />
* Horizontal Review redesign<br />
<br />
= Assignments = <br />
=== Assignments ===<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!Topic!!H!!M!!L!!Weight!!Lead<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|-<br />
|proposal||0||0||0||0||-sucker-<br />
|}</div>Charles